The Telegraph on some of the key choices made during IndyRef by the Unionist side - in particular the crucial decision to limit the referendum question to simple yes or no of outright independence - the logic behind this being - The Prime Minister was determined to restrict the question on the referendum ballot paper to a straight choice between staying in or leaving the UK. He did not want voters to be offered the choice of Devo Max or greatly enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament, including the right to raise and spend all its own taxes. He feared that this option would be seen as a “consolation prize” and would result in continued demands for ever more powers for Holyrood, leading ultimately to full independence. Worth reflecting on how Sri Lankas strategy from the outset in the 70s was the mirror image of the UK approach - criminalising the demand for a separate state soon after the Vadukkodai resolution - in effect guaranteeing a war,a war which could justify military occupation & indeed provided cover for ethnic cleansing. Equally post-war, the Sinhala political strategy will never lead to a political solution - its designed to keep the issues festering, with the 6th amendment still outlawing any full debate, and a reluctance to engage in even basic forms of devolution, a foot-dragging process, while they change the ethnic demography. But then, I am equally tempted to think that the relationship between Tamils and Sinhala is also the mirror image of that between the English and Scots. Indyref was won equally on issues of shared identity as shared economic interests but that must be for another post. telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11110417/Scotland-referendum-David-Camerons-winning-strategy-worked-out-over-venison-at-the-Peat-Inn.html
Posted on: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:53:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015