John Nichols: Voting About Issues That Matter (Scotland independence)

[marmar]

from the Nation:

BLOG | Posted 05/07/2007 @ 7:14pm
Voting About Issues That Matters


EDINBURGH -- The Scottish rock group The Proclaimers sang a quarter century ago: "I cannot understand why we let someone else rule our land."

Last week's elections for the Scottish parliament suggest that a good many Scots are struggling with the same concern.

For the first time in history, the Scottish Nationalist Party , which has campaigned for the better part of a century on an independence platform, is the largest party and its leader, Alex Salmond, is expected to head the new government.

That does not mean that Scotland will in the very near future be taking up a seat at the United Nations.

But it does raise the prospect that, as Salmond says, "Scotland has changed for good and forever."

The change for the good is certain.

...(snip)...

Yet, the voting has created the prospect of such movement, and that is to be celebrated -- even by those who may not favor independence.

A democracy that provides the space for the consideration even of radical change may not be perfect. But it is real, and vibrant -- in a way that America's cannot be said to be.

Scotland uses a voting system in parliamentary elections that is designed to assure that the results are reflective of citizen sentiments. It is far from perfect; indeed, there were enough ballot-design and absentee-voting problems in the latest election to draw comparisons with the troubled processes of the U.S.

But the system errs toward democracy.

In addition to voting for a local representative in parliament -- much like Americans vote for their member of the U.S. House -- Scots also cast a vote for their preferred party in a regional election. Regional seats are assigned proportionally based on those party votes. Thus, Scotland's parliament is far more reflective of Scottish sentiments than the U.S. Congress. And in that reflection it becomes possible to recognize a yearning for independence. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=193076

[Hardrada]

1. Why can't the Upper Midwest vote and be part of Canada

Or form our own nation or Large Commune? Lucky Scots! We have more people who believe in evolution and we deserve our own world away from Jesusland.

[marmar]

2. I'm all for that....

Here in Detroit, we're across the river from Windsor, Ontario, and half the change in our pockets is Canadian anyway!

[Demeter]

3. Why Would Canada Take Us In?

We are the drug addict in the family, the one nobody talks about because it's too embarrassing.

[Glorfindel]

4. Texas, California, and Hawaii have STRONG cases for independence

if they want it, as they were two republics and a kingdom before the USA annexed them. Should they be allowed to "opt out" of the union? I believe this was tried once before, by eleven other states, with unfortunate results all around. Why is the unity of the United Kingdom less important than the unity of the United States? Besides, if I remember correctly (and I do) it was the Scottish Stuarts who assumed the English throne, not the other way around.

[Hardrada]

5. With unfortunate results all round!