This is delusional. The Lib Dem position is dire and has been since Autumn 2010; it won’t change without something much more significant than this. These are not major policies compared with the overall position of large cuts to public spending and the Robin Hood tax won’t get past the Tories. To get Lib Dem policies you need to vote for more Tory policies; to increase spending somewhere you need to cut more elsewhere. The party continually fails to grasp that it will be judged on all the things it acquiesces to, not just the nice bits that the public like.

The Lib Dems are in a weaker position than 2010 because a snap election would destroy them and the Tory right is asserting itself more. You are showing the same disregard for reality as Gordon Brown and John major did in their last few years and will likely share the same fate.

Alternatively, get out of the bloody coalition. Ditch Clegg (I’ve no issue with the guy but he’s an electoral liability) and try to start anew. Just a thought. I’m currently in the position where I want to vote for my excellent local Lib Dem MP, but don’t want to prop up the Tories.

Clegg only has himself to blame. By taking the party to the right, he cost it seats. The LDs had 62 seats before he took over, they now have 57. It wasn’t a great start for Clegg. He also should have taken the confidence and supply option. He’s a fool.

Sir John Simon, thou shouldst be living at this hour!

Finally, the Lib Dems should insist on the introduction of a ‘Robin Hood tax’, similar to that which Francois Hollande is introducing in France.

I’m not sure that campaigning for a substantial reduction in SDRT would be all that popular you know. If it’s a more general FTT you’re after, then you might have picked the one policy that is least likely to be agreed by the Treasury.

Firstly they should give lower earners at best a meagre tax break, while giving middle and upper earners a substantial one? Okay dokey then…

The real problem for the Lib Dems oing forward is that they can no longer be all things to all men,
They will need to specify what they will do in the event they hold the balance of power.

Is it a formula, we will always back the largest single party
Will they use the last government has been rejected so we will enable the change

We will back the party that meets x,y,z from our manifesto – copper bottomed no back out. (then I suppose back to the above if bith agree)

One crumb of sympathy I have for Clegg is that backing the Tories was the only oprion given the Maths (although a formal coalition was a mistake), and that was always going to annoy former Labour protest voters who had assumed they party was a left wing alternative.
(BTW sympathy stops there!!!)

But what ever happens they are going to have to take a massive kicking and ditch the Clegg and the Orange bookers (if any of them are still MPs),

One problem they will have is to remain as one Party and not split into an anti Tory in the Tory south and an anti-Labour in the North. (They are finished in Scotland!)

@3 Buddyhell

How do you reconcile that assessment with them actually increasing their share of the vote under Clegg to within a few %-points of Labour? The fact they lost seats is just a feature of our broken electoral system and is much down to local situations as it is their leader.

@OP
If you look beyond the 1988 merger with the SDP, (the Lib Dems being the same organisation in reality as the old Liberal Party, and probably the oldest political party in the world) they have gone to and recovered from much worse results, nationally and locally.

I concur with those that think the OP is pretty delusional if he sees a realistic way back for the LD’s. The suggested policy options seem like desperately thin gruel to me, and they are vanishingly unlikely to be the kind of thing which prevents electoral oblivion in 2015.

Only the most ardent Orange Book “bitter enders” still think the coalition was a good idea, or that the LD’s weren’t comprehensively out-thought by the Tories. The argument that there was no alternative was crap then, and it is even less convincing now; the price extracted from the Tories was too low, and Plan A has been an obvious failure. Imagine how different things might have been if they had actually stuck to their principles; delivered PR, reformed the Lords, ensured the cancellation of Trident, protected the NHS, and championed FFA for Scotland and more devolution for Wales.

The rump of LD members and activists left must sometimes, in the wee small hours of the morning, lie awake and wonder how it all went so monstrously wrong. No PR, the failed AV referendum, no Lords reform, billions still being wasted on Trident, electoral extinction in Scotland and the threat of a YES vote in the 2014 referendum partly due to their abject failure to champion FFA / devo-max after the electoral seppuku of the Coalition, and swallowing Tory policy after Tory policy in return for a few crusts tossed to them by Dave and Gideon to keep the swivel eyed Tory carpet biters on the right off balance.

The only real option for them now to try and survive as a meaningful force in UK politics (altho’ pace Redfish above, we can probably say English and Welsh politics as they are finished in Scotland) is to withdraw from the Coalition, precipitate a new election, and pray they retain enough support to hold the balance of power again. It seems the closer to 2015 we get, the less likely that will be, but even tho’ it is the most “sensible” course for them as a party, they are unlikely to do it.

In truth, I suspect few will actually mourn the passing of the LD’s. They were always a fairly unhappy marriage, and despite the golden opportunities (not to say open goal) presented to them by the nauseating New Labour project, they proved singularly unable to make the breakthrough necessary to enact the long overdue progressive and radical reforms our creaking political system needs.

If Newer Labour cannot be rendered fit for purpose (and the signs really aren’t looking too good) the only alternative is to hope that in the fullness of time some other force will emerge; not very encouraging perhaps, but then stranger things have happened.

Not remotely enough – if they have any chance of survival (and assuming there’s a perception that they deserve to exist as an independent body after getting into bed with the Tories) they need robustly and aggressively to denounce every idealogically driven “austerity” measure introduced in the last 2+ years.

Only by vehemently rejecting these attacks on the working class and in particular the public sector working class (and let’s be clear, that’s exactly what “austerity” in its current incarnation is) do the Lib Dems have any hope that they’ll be anything but a fond (or not so fond) memory, post 2015…

@3:

Clegg only has himself to blame. By taking the party to the right, he cost it seats.

What cost the Lib Dems votes and seats at the GE was two policies in particular: giving citizenship to illegal immigrants, and nuclear disarmament. Without those policies, the Lib Dems might have got 27% of the votes instead of the 23% they actually got.

These are policies more more associated with the left than the right.

He also should have taken the confidence and supply option.

He should have said to both Labour and the Tories: “We got 23% of the vote, but only 9% of the seats. That’s unfair, unjust, and undemocratic. If you want a coalition with us, you need to address the injustice suffered by people who voted Lib Dem. If you’re not prepared to treat these 6,800,000 voters with respect, then on behalf of them, I cannot do a deal with you.”

@8: In truth, I suspect few will actually mourn the passing of the LD’s.

I would. Of the big Westminster parties, they’re they only one who stood for fair votes.

If someone supports FPTP, they support a party getting 100% of the power on just over a third of the vote.

If they support that, they’re against majority rule.

If they’re against majority rule, they’re against democracy.

If they’re against democracy, they’re against the British people, that is, against Britain.

If someone is against Britain while owing allegiance to that country (as all MPs do), they are traitors.

It would be nice to have at least one big party in this country who aren’t traitors.

@ 11 Phil

“It would be nice to have at least one big party in this country who aren’t traitors.”

Phil, using equivocation to accuse people who disagree with you of treason is a trick belonging to a particularly hysterical sub-sector of the Right. It makes them look stupid. Please let’s not join in.

“If they’re against democracy, they’re against the British people, that is, against Britain.”

If Britain was founded as a democratic country with a democratic constitution that would be true. Unfortunately we’re all subjects of a monarch who is the embodiment of the state, including Her Majesty’s Government. Treason is to act against the state; so being a proper democrat is closer to treason in the UK.

From day one this coalition was the kiss of death for the Liberal Democrats. The only way out of this mess lies beyond the next GElection and the fall of the Clegg leadership – once they have stepped down and the fog clears (and we find out how many MPs are left) we can then begin rebuilding the party.

Around truly modern democratic principles founded on social justice and rational governance.

@14 mike

“….once they have stepped down and the fog clears (and we find out how many MPs are left) we can then begin rebuilding the party.”

Theoretically possible, but I’d venture highly unlikely in practice; the LD’s are a lost cause, so far better to wipe the slate clean and start again. The rump of 10% of the electorate who want a classical Liberal party might want to persevere with the LD’s, but the brand is probably irredeemably tainted by association with the Tories, their supine performance within the Coalition, and their lack of any charismatic leadership.

The way for the LibDems to go forward is to be liberal. The majority of the other two parties can’t manage it — I have been friends with exceptions — so get on with it. That requires some apologies and retractions about behaviour in the coalition. LibDems should get on with promoting their unique selling point.

Electoral reform is not solely a liberal position (it is a social democrat or pragmatic one, too) but one that has been associated with the party for 100 years. It is not a door step selling point but one that needs to be kept alive, if only to appeal to constitutional reformers.

Green concerns have a philosophical component — if you are a liberal, green stuff affects the liberty of fellow planet dwellers and future ones. LibDems, historically, have associated themselves with small or local campaigns. I’m not convinced that the party (or any other, including the Green Party) has the faintest clue about realistic delivery of a greener world.

On point three, suggested by Tim Wigmore, OP : “…Lib Dems should insist on the introduction of a ‘Robin Hood tax’…” I can think of few things worse to support. By its definition, the tax would be targeted at a social group because a hypothetical government thinks that they deserve it.

Taxation should be blind. Government should tax you on the basis of annual income, VAT, site/land value rating, national insurance — irrespective of who you are. Prostitutes, gangsters and (most especially) haberdashers should pay the same rate as “bankers”.

I didn’t forget about reform to remove low paid workers from the ridiculous tax pay/tax benefit scenario. It is a cracking good LibDem policy position and is one that only the Conservatives would challenge in the future.

There is no way back for Nick Clegg.

The Lib Dems gained votes in 2010, but lost seats. This means that they are able to lose votes without necessarily losing that many seats.

I agree with Phil, the Lib Dems are almost the only option in England for anyone who does not consider the parliamentary system to be democratic (FPTP in the Commons and zilch in the Lords).

On International issues and Europe, Conservatives and Labour are deeply suspect. Perhaps pulling out of the EU and invading other countries are quite popular these days, but the UK does need a party that espouses an alternative.

@ 10 & 11 Phil Hunt

A tiny minority of people vote on single issues, or even on the basis of a couple of “hot” issues, and even if they did there is zero evidence for your claim that these issues helped deprive the LD’s of the “vital” few % which might have made a difference to the size of their breakthrough. It is just as possible that had they actually grown a pair and made cancellation of Trident, introduction of full PR, and adoption of Plan B the cost of any Coalition, it would have been more likely to gain them the necessary support.

Nuclear disarmement and immigration ARE policies more likely to appeal to the left, but prior to 2010 that’s where the LD’s were seen on the spectrum. Of course now that most of their left of centre support has defected it is no longer the case. However, all they had to offer realistically was Trident cancellation, not full disarmament, also they just had to be seen as more progressive and less rabidly anti-immigration than New Labour or the Tories. For every vote they lost for the reasons you state, they would have picked up others from the left, particularly given New Labour’s lamentable performance on civil liberties.

I fully agree with Chaise @12 on your misguided rant @11. The failure of even AV to be achieved can be laid squarely at the feet of the LD’s; they were comprehensively outmanoeuvred by the Tories, largely because they simply lack charismatic leadership and people with political nous and gravitas. Clegmania before the 2010 election was definitely not a personal vote in favour of Clegg because people thought he was a gifted politician, or that they expected him to rout the opposition; it was a much more inchoate longing for “none of the above” after 18 years of thatcherism and 13 years of Blairism which were in many respects the same nauseating project.

The only way a fully proportional system has a chance is either to convert Labour to it, or to start from scratch and hope that a “new” party (perhaps in co-operation with the rump Liberals) can force it through in the teeth of tory and Labour opposition at a later date.

@18 Martin

Hmmnn… I don’t know if they’ll be able to depend on that tactic in 2015. They are certainly more able to retain seats due to having some decent individual constituency MP’s, and efficient local party activists and political machines, however they are still likely to be severely punished at the next GE. They are very likely to lose seats in Scotland as their support there has collapsed (assuming the scots don’t vote YES in 2014 of course).

The only thing which can realistically save them is if Labour and the tories are still close enough for them to hold the balance of power again, even if they DO lose seats. I would wager that is unlikely to happen unless they do something quick smart to (at the very least) distance themselves from the Tories, if not leave the coalition altogether.

Clegg and his acolytes are dead men walking, and I suspect they all know it, so of course they are hardly likely to do the right thing and sacrifice themselves to ensure the survival of their party, still less in the interests of promoting progressive politics in the country as a whole…. they gave up on the that the moment they lost their collective bottle during the 5 days of May 2010.

The LD’s aren’t part of the solution to our broken political system anymore, they are part of the problem.

@19,

A tiny minority of people vote on single issues, or even on the basis of a couple of “hot” issues, and even if they did there is zero evidence for your claim that these issues helped deprive the LD’s of the “vital” few % which might have made a difference to the size of their breakthrough.

The impression I got from the GE is that Clegg did well in the leaders’ debates, the lib dems were doing well in the polls, thnen the other parties highlighted immigration and defence and the Lib Dems’ poll figures went down.

your misguided rant @11

I of course knew when I wrote it that some would find it extreme. But the logic seems sound to me: if someone favours FPTP, they are against democracy, and therefore the people. If you disagree, what is your counter argument? Note that I am not saying that supporters of FPTP are as individuals bad people — most are not, just as most politicians genuinely want to improve things, even if I (and others) think they are deeply misguided.

The failure of even AV to be achieved can be laid squarely at the feet of the LD’s; they were comprehensively outmanoeuvred by the Tories, largely because they simply lack charismatic leadership and people with political nous and gravitas.

The AV campaign was badly run, and I expect a campaign for STV would have done better, since it is actually PR unlike AV.

But yes, Clegg was completely outmanouvred. As I’ve explained ,a href=”http://meowc.at/message/124″>elsewhere, the Tories want to correct the small imbalance in the electoral system against them, while thwarting all attempts to correct the vastly greater imbalance against the Lib Dems. Clegg was a fool to let himself be used in this way.

Clegmania before the 2010 election was definitely not a personal vote in favour of Clegg because people thought he was a gifted politician, or that they expected him to rout the opposition; it was a much more inchoate longing for “none of the above” after 18 years of thatcherism and 13 years of Blairism which were in many respects the same nauseating project.

You’re right to some extent — many people in 2010 (and now!) dislike both big parties. But the Lib Dem surge happened straight after the 1st leders’ debate, which suggests strongly to me that the two were linked.

The only way a fully proportional system has a chance is either to convert Labour to it,

The most likely way that would happen if if there’s a Labour gvovernment which fears the Tories might win the next GE.

or to start from scratch and hope that a “new” party (perhaps in co-operation with the rump Liberals) can force it through in the teeth of tory and Labour opposition at a later date.

Or a coalition of small parties could get together.

@21 Phil

Yes, Clegg did perform well in the leaders debates; partly he got lucky, partly the opposition was pretty dreadful, partly ANYONE would have looked good in comparison to more years of New Labour, or the return of the Tories. You don’t “know” the drop on LD support immediately prior to the GE was related to the policies which appear to be your hobby horse; it could equally well have been voter “fright” at the prospect of a Coalition, or a simple realisation that Clegg was actually an empty vessel, and was already lining up to trade in his backbone for a ministerial car.

I agree with your analysis of Clegg, and recall being rounded on and attacked again and again immediately after the GE by hosts of the LD’s useful idiots (as well as plenty of Blairite true believers) for suggesting that Clegg and his party sold themselves and the nation short.

The fact the LD surge happened post debate was partly due to personal factors yes, but also partly (and I’d argue more) due to a general longing for an alternative to the 2 major parties, to something progressive, and to a party which was radical….. the mistake many of us made was thinking that party was the LD’s.

I agree that Labour probably needs to be frightened the Tories will win in 2015 to change to the extent necessary; whether they are any more capable of being rendered fit for purpose than the LD’s has to be open to question. I rather think not, both on the general evidence so far in the UK, but also more particularly given their lamentable performance in Scotland where they are on course to hand the SNP independence on a plate.

Your plan of a coalition of smaller parties seems unlikely to me… far fetched even. I’m increasingly disheartened at the prospect for real change in the whole rotten edifice which is the UK political system, which is why I’m praying my fellow countrymen vote YES in 2014; it will hopefully result in the long overdue kick up the arse that the deeply flawed and institutionally corrupt system needs.

We can’t trust the LD’s to deliver, or nauseating Newer Labour cadres… hopefully independence for Scotland will provide the catalyst.

@ 21 Phil

“The impression I got from the GE is that Clegg did well in the leaders’ debates, the lib dems were doing well in the polls, thnen the other parties highlighted immigration and defence and the Lib Dems’ poll figures went down.”

Probably to some extent, but the Lib Dems’ performance was worse than polls predicted even at the eleventh hour. This suggests that either a) a large number of people took a “better the devil you know” attitude when actually confronted with a ballot paper, and/or b) a disproportionately large number of LD supporters didn’t vote.

“I of course knew when I wrote it that some would find it extreme. But the logic seems sound to me: if someone favours FPTP, they are against democracy, and therefore the people. If you disagree, what is your counter argument?”

I criticised you for the “traitors” comment too, so I’ll give my response if that’s ok. I think the logic breaks down in two places of your original comment:

“If they’re against majority rule, they’re against democracy.”

This is an oversimplification. In theory, a love of democracy via majority rule should lead you to believe that criminal trials should be decided by phone-in vote. I doubt you’d support that. You can believe in the principles of democracy and still think that the system should sacrifice a *certain* amount of pure majority rule to allow it to run smoothly in real-world terms. Democracy isn’t all-or-nothing.

More importantly:

“If they’re against democracy, they’re against the British people, that is, against Britain.”

This is YOUR criteria for determining what counts as “against the people”. Others’ may vary. You could use this argument to accuse pretty much anyone who disagreed with you about anything of treason. “Enslaving India is in Britain’s commercial interests, anyone who’s against it is against the people and thus a traitor”. Or “Forcing people to pay tax to sort out other people’s problem is wrong and oppressive. If you want to tax the British people, you’re against them and therefore a traitor”.

Basically you’re conflating your political beliefs with the nebulous concept of “the British people”. I can see that the logic is seductive but I think you’re turning a subjective belief into a definitive factual statement.

@23. Chaise Guevara: “You can believe in the principles of democracy and still think that the system should sacrifice a *certain* amount of pure majority rule to allow it to run smoothly in real-world terms.”

Forgive me for intruding into a private argument

Practicality of government and a democratic voting process are independent. At various times post 1945, Italy has used PR systems that deny single party control and non-PR that guaranteed control to a big party without majority voter support. Almost all of those governments were corrupt and “generally rubbish” but somehow Italy has prospered and has a socially liberal culture. It is far from perfect, but Italy is high in the liberal league tables. Currently, of course, Italy does not have an elected government; the country is run by technocrats.

Belgium doesn’t have a “government” but it collects taxes and looks after its citizens. Belgium has not been excommunicated by the EU and participated in NATO intervention in Libya.

Those two examples are not proof against the “strong government” argument that FPTP supporters proclaim; but they are indicative that “government” can work in different ways and that it does not need to be strong. (This argument is conditional on the non-governed country being a liberal democracy populated by free thinkers and agitators.)

@ Charlieman

Precisely, and well put.

While the whole “vote on criminal trials” thing is a reductio ad absurdum, anyone who believes that proper democracy means “the people get to decide everything” should at least believe that every parlimentary question must be resolved by popular vote. And that creates a whole bloody cavalcade of problems. Like people voting on things they don’t know about, and some Grand Vizier type taking subtle control of everything because they control the questions that are voted on.

Democracy is a solution, not a religion. I wish people picked up on that more often.

Chaise

Always worth noting that democracy is apt only where there is competence among the public.

A murder trial is thus democratic. It takes 12 almost random members of the public and makes them competent enough to vote on the verdict.

@ 26 m4e

“Always worth noting that democracy is apt only where there is competence among the public.”

Agreed, which is the main reason that ideal democracy doesn’t just mean reflecting public opinion as accurately as possible. Representative democracy, for all its flaws, allows professionals* to create police having been given their mandate by the public.

*Someone is sure to say that calling politicians “professionals” is being very generous indeed. I mean it literally rather than qualitively, the main point being that politicians have the time to examine all the implications of a proposed policy and are strongly incentivised to take the downsides into account. If we made policy based on “things the people want” we’d probably have free healthcare and education and zero tax…

@26 & 27

Whilst I would agree with m4e in general terms that the public concerned must be “competent” (although you might want to define what that means in practice), there are other factors to consider, such as the extent to which the society they are operating in is free, how free is their media, their judiciary, their access to information etc? Having 12 good men (women) and true decide the fate of someone in a trial is guarantee that they have received a fair trial or justice in a more general sense. Context is everything.

I also concur that representative democracy (for all it’s faults) is probably the best system we have (yet) managed to design to cope with the demands of modern liberal democracy etc. etc… so far, so much “motherhood and apple pie”.

It has however occurred to me recently whilst engaged (mostly elsewhere than LC) in debates about the coming Scottish Referendum in 2014, that there are situations in which it behoves us to be careful what we wish for, pace the recent laughably biased report of the Scottish Affairs Committee on the question, and the subsequent delicious meltdown of the odious Committee Chairman and Labour MP Ian Davidson in a Newsnight Scotland interview.

In this he opined that the wishes of the people of Scotland and their parliament in Holyrood, were apparently subservient to the primacy of the Westminster parliament, the oversight of his Committee (which interestingly contains several English Tories parachuted in to make up for the fact they are essentially extinct North of the border), and/or the agreement of Scottish MP’s in Westminster.

This will of course come as a surprise to most of the Scottish people, and to the many constitutional experts who have rejected the SAC’s point of view, and Unionist blustering about whether the Scottish Government is “allowed” to hold a consultative referendum, or to decide on when it is held, or what the question (or questions) are etc.

So, it appears that Mr Davidson and his Unionist mates (including sadly the Liberal Democrats who really ought to know better), appear to have something of a blind spot for accepting democracy when they think the answer doesn’t suit them.

@ 28 Galen

That’s not so much ignoring democracy as arguing over how you define it. You could argue that, as Scotland is presently part of the UK, the whole country has the right to determine whether or not we let it go (indeed, I assume that’s the unionist argument here). There’s an obvious reductio ad absurdum along the lines of “If my housemate and I vote to make ourself independent, can we refuse to pay tax?”. One could say that if the Scots wish to secede, good luck to them; but they can find their own land in which to live.

Don’t get me wrong: if Scotland declares itself independent and has the internal democratic mandate to do so, I’m not sure how we could morally refuse. This might not extend to all assets currently in Scottish territory, of course. But it’s precisely at times like this that we look with fresh eyes at the comfortable old concept of “democracy” and ask what it really *means* when the situation becomes unfamiliar. Shouting “we’re democratic and you’re not” at the opposition seems very biased and oversimplistic.

@29 Chaise

“That’s not so much ignoring democracy as arguing over how you define it. You could argue that, as Scotland is presently part of the UK, the whole country has the right to determine whether or not we let it go (indeed, I assume that’s the unionist argument here). ”

It is an argument frequently made by the intellectually challenged extremes of Unionist thought, yes… it is however factually inaccurate as well as morally and politically repugnant. In fact most “mainstream” Unionist thought has been pretty careful to avoid this line of argument, both because they know it is like a red rag to a bull for most Scots, but also because it simply isn’t true.

The troubling aspect of the SAC’s report, Davidson’s interpretation of it in his interview, and the LD’s supine acceptance of this line as part of the “Bitter (sorry Better) Together” campaign, is that he does appear to be saying that the English constiututional doctrine of the supremacy of parliament over-rides the wishes of the Scottish people as expressed in the clear mandate given to the SNP to hold a referendum at the last Holyrood election. This of course is already contrary to the Claim of Right, and flies in the face of the court Axa vs the Lord Advocate ruling which has established beyond doubt that Acts of the Scottish Parliament cannot simply be over-ruled by Westminster or anybody else on the grounds that it is a subordinate legislature.

In Scotland, unlike in England, the people are sovereign and it behoves Mr Davidson and his feckless LD chums to remember the fact.

@ 30 Galen

IANAL, but that doesn’t sound like a cut and dried argument for English claims to have a right to a vote being “factually inaccurate”. The fact that Scottish votes can’t be overruled doesn’t mean that England has to accept Scottish votes on things they have no authority over (e.g. what if Scotland votes that the entire UK budget be spent on Scotland?).

You seem to be coming from the starting assumption that the UK had no claim to Scottish territory. Morally I back you, but it could be fairly interpreted as a group of UK citizens deciding to secede and then trying to blag some free land in the process.

Weirdly, it would actually be to the Unionists’ benefit for the vote to be Scotland-only; IIRC independence is more popular south of the border.

@31 Chaise

Sorry, but it is an accepted norm of international law that the wishes of the people of a seceding state cannot be over-rules by the wishes of the majority of the “existing” state, so the example you posit is factually inaccurate. Only the most swivel eyed Unionist ultras, or those who simply don’t know the facts would maintain otherwise. It may well be true that plenty of people in England would vote of “english independence”, but they aren’t voting for parties that promote it.

It isn’t about territory, it’s about the pretensions of “some” Unionists like Davidson and those on the SAC, to try and impose conditions on the holding of the referendum which are both questionable consitutionally, and liable to blow up in their faces down the line. Nothing is more inclined to convince undecided voters in Scotland to vote YES in 2014 than the sight of Unionist cadres like Davidson et al telling them what they can and can’t do.

@ 32 Galen

This IS about territory. Scotland is proposing to remove a sizeable amount of land from UK ownership.

I’ll need a source for your claim about the wishes of the seceding state being paramount beyond simply stating that it’s an “accepted norm”, and especially a source that explains how this deals with territory.

@33 Chaise

You are missing the point; the potential dissolution of the UK and replacement with and independent Scotalnd and a rump UK has little if anything to do with territory. Apart perhaps from Berwick on Tweed, and a section of North Sea waters the Blair government unilaterally transferred from the putative Scottish to English sector, the issue isn’t related to a territorial dispute…. but in the scheme of things these are trifles.

Successive UK governments have already said they have no selfish interest in keeping Scotland within the UK if the majority of Scots people vote to dissolve the Union, and the same for N. Ireland I think.

The legal position (surprise, surprise) is subject to much debate, complicated by the fact that there are relatively few if any exact counterparts to the Scottish/UK situation. The most “common” similarity is usually seen to be the Quebec/Canada one, particularly vis a vis the Canadian Clarity Act after the last independence referendum there.

As many commentators on both sides of the argument have pointed out however, the real question here is not legal but political, and there is little chance of any UK government trying to over-rule a freely expressed majority decision in Scotland for independence.

The UK Constitutional Law Group has an interesting site which discusses many of the issues, more recently it has had a lot of interesting debate around the issue of whether the Scottish Governement has the legal right to hold the referendum, or whether Westminster can dictate the terms and/or attach conditions.

Whilst some Unionist leaning scholars are of the opinion that Westminster sovereignty is paramount, and that in the end only with the agreement of Westminster could Scotland become independent, there are plenty of authorities who hold the contrary view, which rests on the historical differences between the Scottish people being sovereign in Scotland, not the monarch or parliament.

MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396), and AXA v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, both suggest that it is most unlikely that the UK Supreme Court would attempt to strike down a decision of the Scottish Parliament, the presumption being against judicial intereference in the democratic process. Thus the Scottish Government would be held to be within it’s rights to hold a referendum, and in the fullness of time would be within it’s rights to dissolve the Union if it had a majority and mandate to do so.