Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Of course a referendum on dissolving the union which is not pre-agreed by Westminster would be illegal; by definition it would be illegal. Equally funding it via the block grant would also probably be illegal on two counts, first that it was a disallowed and therefore illegitimate expense and secondly that it was use of public funds for SNP party political purposes (the SNP have form for that).

The Block Grant can be spent on whatever the Scottish Government wishes. And the 'illegality' of another referendum is a legal minefield as it was in 2011, it still is in 2015. Westminster might not want one to go ahead. But there's very little chance of being able to stop it going ahead. And if they don't recognise the result of the referendum ( if it's a Yes). What do they do ?

As far as democracy goes, that concept would have been left behind as soon as the illegality was committed. On top of that it is quite likely that unionists would be advised to boycot the referendum reducing the turnout to the level where the result would not be credible.and not valid anyway.

Look at the example in Spain.

They'd boycott a referendum at their peril I should imagine. It would be made perfectly clear to all that the result would stand whatever it is, just like the last time. Scotland already has had a referendum with a 'turnout/40% of the vote' limit set on it. The result was very much resented at the time. And unlikely to be repeated.

In principle the vote should be for all of the UK. Take another scenario, for example, where England (as a faux country) held a referendum without the agreement of Westminster or the participation of the Scots, on whether to kick Scotland out of the Union. You guys would be whinging all over that one, and exceptionally, your whinging would be justified.

That would be a vote for English independence. Entirely for England's voters to make the choice. But at the end of the day, in any scenario.. the larger dominating entity, should never have the power to stop or withold the right of a smaller entity within it to leave democratically via the ballot box should it so wish. That goes for the UK in the EU, or Scotland within the UK.

Ambulances? That was surely obvious; in the context of an illegal referendum, where the illegal side gains a small majority, one can hardly be surprised with a great deal of dissent. The SNP would hold the responsibility of precipitating such unrest.

You'd want to hold the SNP entirely responsible for rioting violent No voters ? Don't be daft. That's a ludicrous assertion. Yes lost the vote last year and managed perfectly well not to riot over it. I don't see why No voters should be any different.

Mistermeaner

agree with string above - another way of thinking about it: if scotland thinks it can have a referendum and then declare itself independent then what is to stop any other part of the UK doing the same? e.g. yorkshire, cheshire, s!!!!horpe, london etc....

Just throw up an imaginary physical boundary round anything, get enough people within that boundary to say "we are independent" and as id by magic they are.

Extend that further and I assume I can declare my house and garden an independent nation state.

I'll stop paying tax and legalise murder thank you very much.

What's so special about scotland?

elantan

Mistermeaner wrote: »

What's so special about scotland?

exactly ... whats so special about Scotland that WM wants to keep a hold of it? its not like we all behave as if we love being dominated by WM it cant be about the oil ... so what is it ?

wotsthat

elantan wrote: »

exactly ... whats so special about Scotland that WM wants to keep a hold of it? its not like we all behave as if we love being dominated by WM it cant be about the oil ... so what is it ?

It's the Union that's special and the people of Scotland decided, on balance, to remain part of it.

Apparently there's going to be another vote in a generation (minus 1 year 2 months). Set an alarm.

.string.

@Shakey - you seem to be unable to argue beyond the SNP wish list, thinking that the law of the land can be discarded at any nationalist whim. There's a bigger picture out there beyond your party headquarters. For starters there are your fellow Scots who don't see eye to aye with you (pun intended), then there is the reaction of the rest of the UK which you persistently ignore and then the reaction of the wider world.

Things are not as simplistic as you so often portray.

Not that I think you don't know some of these things but it really does become irritating when we get the self-serving fodder that SNP acolytes might applaud but few others.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey - you seem to be unable to argue beyond the SNP wish list, thinking that the law of the land can be discarded at any nationalist whim. There's a bigger picture out there beyond your party headquarters. For starters there are your fellow Scots who don't see eye to aye with you (pun intended), then there is the reaction of the rest of the UK which you persistently ignore and then the reaction of the wider world.

Things are not as simplistic as you so often portray.

Not that I think you don't know some of these things but it really does become irritating when we get the self-serving fodder that SNP acolytes might applaud but few others.

It's very simple. In 1707 Scotland and England joined in a political union. At some point in the future, once again, Scots voters may be invited to dissolve that political union and move all politics, once again back to Edinburgh. This is for Scottish voters and residents to decide. Not for Westminster or anyone else. This is basic self-determination.

The right of nations to self-determination (from German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker) is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.[1][2] It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference[

Posts such as these above

then what is to stop any other part of the UK doing the same? e.g. yorkshire, cheshire, s!!!!horpe, london etc

Are just displaying their own lack of knowledge of basic United Kingdom history and how Scotland and England came to be in a Union in the first place. Scotland was never part of England to begin with like Yorkshire or Cheshire. Both countries joined the union at the same time, voluntarily in 1707... So there's no question of rUK not 'allowing' Scotland to leave, or declare the result of a referendum 'illegal' if that's what the Scottish electorate decide at some point.

The reaction of the rUK is immaterial. I expect most of us will just get on with it and adapt... should it happen.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's very simple. In 1707 Scotland and England joined in a political union. At some point in the future, once again, Scots voters may be invited to dissolve that political union and move all politics, once again back to Edinburgh. This is for Scottish voters and residents to decide. Not for Westminster or anyone else. This is basic self-determination.

Posts such as these above
Are just displaying their own lack of knowledge of basic United Kingdom history and how Scotland and England came to be in a Union in the first place. Scotland was never part of England to begin with like Yorkshire or Cheshire. Both countries joined the union at the same time, voluntarily in 1707... So there's no question of rUK not 'allowing' Scotland to leave, or declare the result of a referendum 'illegal' if that's what the Scottish electorate decide at some point.

The reaction of the rUK is immaterial. I expect most of us will just get on with it and adapt... should it happen.

now I never knew that the scottish people voted for union with england

it's good to get the wider perspective.

Tromking

CLAPTON wrote: »

now I never knew that the scottish people voted for union with england

it's good to get the wider perspective.

I hear a bankrupt Scotland voted for said Union. A wider perspective indeed.

elantan

Watching the Scotland bill ... aye ma blood is boiling ... how's yours Shake, Leanne and Zubugov?

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I hear a bankrupt Scotland voted for said Union. A wider perspective indeed.

Ordinary people didn't vote at all back then. Thankfully things have moved on a bit.

Scottish proponents of union believed that failure to agree to the treaty would result in the imposition of union under less favourable terms, and English troops were stationed just south of the border and in Ireland as an "encouragement".

Months of fierce debate in both capital cities and throughout both kingdoms followed. In Scotland, the debate on occasion dissolved into civil disorder, most notably by the notorious 'Edinburgh Mob'.

The prospect of a union of the kingdoms was deeply unpopular among the Scottish population at large, and talk of an uprising was widespread.[10] However the Treaty was signed and the documents were rushed south with a large military escort.

Anway, I see the 'debate' on the Scotland Bill is going well. Only 5 hours to debate 200 amendments. It's been held up by a point of order about the toilets in the HOC. An hour and 15 mins have passed before the first SNP MP was invited to speak. I don't think there's been a single amendment debated yet.

A pretty poor show if you ask me.