Should Scotland be governed from London by a parliament designed to be an adversarial debating chamber: with an unelected second chamber; using the First-Past-The-Post electoral system; by an institution that has had the interests of The City of London and the financial sector embedded at its heart for hundreds of years, and; a legacy of empire? Or, from Edinburgh by a wholely elected parliament designed to be conciliatory and collaborative: elected using an Additional Member System (AMS) electoral system - designed to return coalition governments and represent the full spectrum of political views, and; that is physically and culturally within reach of people in Scotland? That is it. Everything else is speculation. All sides in this debate admit Scotland has what it takes to prosper and anyway all other arguments - currency, trident, supermarket prices etc etc - are politicking and can only be worked out by elections and political negotiations. This process is already in play. Scotland elected an SNP government empowered to negotiate a referendum on independence. The UK elected a Conservative/Liberal Democrat government, which negotiated the Edinburgh Agreement with the SNP - an agreement that sets out the terms of the referendum, most importantly that the process will be carried out with good will and the decision of the Scottish people will be respected and final I believe that Scotland is better served by a parliament located in Edinburgh that is designed to function in fundamentally different ways, and with a different legacy, than parliament in London.
Posted on: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:12:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015