Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8

[simoid]

Gribs said:

It's the EU, they tend to be very flexible with the rules.

Yes, our current negotiations are going very well as they’re so tolerant.

[Strocky]

simoid said:

Yes, our current negotiations are going very well as they’re so tolerant.

And nothing to do with David Davis/Raab and the Tory Gov’s incompetence

How dare the EU look after their member states interests whilst ensuring the GFA agreement isn’t broken

The UK should have been able to run rings round a Parliament that needs to keep 27 member states happy, the reality is somewhat different

How many extensions have they doled out now to keep a lame duck PM in the negotiating seat?

[technodup]

Strocky said:

The UK should have been able to run rings round a Parliament that needs to keep 27 member states happy, the reality is somewhat different

They don't though. They've got two or three to keep happy, the others will do as they're told.

(Guess which group Scotland would fall into should it ever be an EU member?).

[Evercross]

NoNeed said:

She could call a referendum if she wants, it would then be upto the UK to either refuse or accept the result.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just a muppet? I'd genuinely love to know the answer because it would shed some light on one of the two legal fallacies the SNP drive at their supporters (the other being that Scotland could automatically accede to EU membership).

Sturgeon can say what she wants but she cannot stage a referendum. If she was to call any poll a referendum, or if any state-owned resources were used to implement some sort of opinion poll carefully named not to fall foul of electoral and constitutional naming conventions she would still have committed a criminal offence under UK and international law. Legal precedent - Catalonia.

You are your chippy mates have to stop talking ste like this if you want to be taken seriously in any debate. There's a blindingly obvious reason why Nicola prevaricates constantly and perpetually on the issue and it is beyond high-time you woke up to it.

[Evercross]

NoNeed said:

: censored:

Scotland Act 1998 Schedule 5. See Section B3. Elections.

Progression of process for Section 30 order to hold Scottish Referendum on Independence from the United Kingdom.

Edited by Evercross on Saturday 13th April 08:24

Edited by Scrump on Saturday 13th April 13:09

[technodup]

There's only one regular indy muppet here and it's not NoNeed.

You could argue for Edinburgher but he wants his cake and eat it.

[NRS]

So you have no response then, so decide to play the person (and very poorly - and given PH's recent change to modding will likely get you a ban from this thread)?

[Pastor Of Muppets]

Legalities aside.... The majority of Scots are clued up enough to know that breaking up the UK is brim full of negative
aspects, vastly more than the positives, and especially under the control of the devious and deceitful SNP.

I am perfectly happy to see them have another 'once in a generation' referendum, because when NO is announced as the
winning vote, as it was the first time, the SNP will be ruined. Now that would be a great thing for the nation,
just a pity there isn't another party genuinely worthy of being at the helm.

[NoNeed]

Pastor Of Muppets said:

Legalities aside.... The majority of Scots are clued up enough to know that breaking up the UK is brim full of negative
aspects, vastly more than the positives, and especially under the control of the devious and deceitful SNP.

I am perfectly happy to see them have another 'once in a generation' referendum, because when NO is announced as the
winning vote, as it was the first time, the SNP will be ruined. Now that would be a great thing for the nation,
just a pity there isn't another party genuinely worthy of being at the helm.

I agree, however with the turmoil at Westminster, I couldn't blame Scots for going, It would also be the best time to capitalise on that turmoil if independence was your aim.

[technodup]

NoNeed said:

I think you know the answer to that.


and as for his facts,
1) international law does not prevent self-determination, By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference

4)Catalonia's referendum was illegal Under Spanish law not international

5) The UK as a signatory of the united nations would have to abide by their law, if there is anything, and that is if, (as I am not aware of any such law) in UK Law that prevents self-determination it would fall foul on international law.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with the principle, more the process. Scotland within the UK has a clear process to achieve self determination. We even had a referendum on it, all legal and everything.

The situation now is that Sturgeon has to persuade May that a) she has a sufficient mandate and b) now is an appropriate time to have another go, and I suspect May is all out of enthusiasm for referendums now, as are most of the rest of us.

[NoNeed]

technodup said:

NoNeed said:

I think you know the answer to that.


and as for his facts,
1) international law does not prevent self-determination, By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference

4)Catalonia's referendum was illegal Under Spanish law not international

5) The UK as a signatory of the united nations would have to abide by their law, if there is anything, and that is if, (as I am not aware of any such law) in UK Law that prevents self-determination it would fall foul on international law.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with the principle, more the process. Scotland within the UK has a clear process to achieve self determination. We even had a referendum on it, all legal and everything.

The situation now is that Sturgeon has to persuade May that a) she has a sufficient mandate and b) now is an appropriate time to have another go, and I suspect May is all out of enthusiasm for referendums now, as are most of the rest of us.

The only defence Westminster has is the will of poeple, how do you ascertain such without a referendum, we may not like it but there has been a very significant change since the last one that could make a big difference.

[NRS]

NoNeed said:

The only defence Westminster has is the will of poeple, how do you ascertain such without a referendum, we may not like it but there has been a very significant change since the last one that could make a big difference.

But there hasn't really been that yet. As of now we have no idea what will happen - Hard Brexit, soft or cancel it. So any referendum done now would surely need a re-run once the Brexit story has run it's course - at least in deciding what to do. Of course it'll be like the SNP and whatever happens some groups will push for a re-run a few years after etc.

[abzmike]

May wouldn’t allow a referendum, but she will be gone soon enough so is an irrelevance. A more likely scenario is Labour under JC or anyone else, needing 60 SNP MPs to form a UK government - the price of which would be a referendum.

[NRS]

abzmike said:

May wouldn’t allow a referendum, but she will be gone soon enough so is an irrelevance. A more likely scenario is Labour under JC or anyone else, needing 60 SNP MPs to form a UK government - the price of which would be a referendum.

Problem with that is if Scotland gets independence then you lose a lot of Labour/SNP seats with Scotland, so the Labour party would really screw themselves long term compared to the Conservatives in the rUK in terms of ever winning again.

[abzmike]

NRS said:

Problem with that is if Scotland gets independence then you lose a lot of Labour/SNP seats with Scotland, so the Labour party would really screw themselves long term compared to the Conservatives in the rUK in terms of ever winning again.

Fair point, but given the choice what would Labour do? They could have single figures of Scottish MPs, I saw a poll yesterday they’re at 15%.

[NoNeed]

NRS said:

NoNeed said:

The only defence Westminster has is the will of poeple, how do you ascertain such without a referendum, we may not like it but there has been a very significant change since the last one that could make a big difference.

But there hasn't really been that yet. As of now we have no idea what will happen - Hard Brexit, soft or cancel it. So any referendum done now would surely need a re-run once the Brexit story has run it's course - at least in deciding what to do. Of course it'll be like the SNP and whatever happens some groups will push for a re-run a few years after etc.

Which is why I said turmoil in Westminster, it doesn't know what direction it wants to go, nor who it wants to go with.

All it needs is somebody to stand up and say Scotland will go this way as Westminster can't decide and is holding us back with its indecision.

[Evercross]

abzmike said:

NRS said:

Problem with that is if Scotland gets independence then you lose a lot of Labour/SNP seats with Scotland, so the Labour party would really screw themselves long term compared to the Conservatives in the rUK in terms of ever winning again.

Fair point, but given the choice what would Labour do? They could have single figures of Scottish MPs, I saw a poll yesterday they’re at 15%.

...and Labour will be thinking that with toxic toaryism, when the mood swings away from the SNP in Scotland (which it will) it will fall back to them. There's not a hope in hell Labour will concede a referendum to the SNP in exchange for a coalition.

As for the whole 'self determination' thing, that still doesn't give a Scottish first minister the right to unilaterally break the law and constitution, which is precisely why Nicola couches any discussion on the possibility of the consideration of a consultation on the conditions that may precipitate the likelihood of the setting of a potential date for another referendum in the terms of a mandate from the people leading to a request for another S30 order and the granting of another temporary constitutional change.

(And before anyone mentions it again, Nicola knows she does not have one, because MSPs voting through their own policy and creating a false retrospective narrative doesn't constitute a mandate from the people).

So, as I said, Nicola won't be 'calling a referendum' anytime ever.

Edited by Evercross on Saturday 13th April 12:55

[biggbn]

So...when will sturgeon call the next referendum?....🤣

[Strocky]

technodup said:

hey don't though. They've got two or three to keep happy, the others will do as they're told.

(Guess which group Scotland would fall into should it ever be an EU member?).

Let me guess the EU group that has no say in it's political constitution, it's own state's foreign policy, currency, defence, broadcasting, broadband or 100% of it's welfare policies?

What do I win?

[technodup]

Evercross said:

There's not a hope in hell Labour will concede a referendum to the SNP in exchange for a coalition.

I'd love that to happen for one reason. To see how the SNP explain away them being 'in charge' of England with literally zero votes. The usual cry of 'we get governments we didn't vote for' would ring a bit hollow.