The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Arklight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Subtle but important difference from Catalonia ( one of many differences ).. but Scotland isn't voting as a region to secede from the UK, it's voting to dissolve a union it voluntarily entered as a country.

Scotland isn't part of another country, it's in a union with other countries. :cool:

Catalonia, I suspect the new elections in December will dissolve into farce. Spain has already said if an/independence parties win then they'll simply impose Article 155 again. The problem Spain has is that the grassroots support for independence won't just disappear and is probably now becoming stronger. As fast as they arrest or exile independence leaders, more will simply pop up and replace them. It's an idea/cause they're after, not any specific leader or party. http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/opinion-poll-confirms-what-we-already.html

In the face of the above is likely independence supporting parties will win again in December.

It wasn't voluntary though, was it? Scotland would have been occupied by England sooner or later. The Act of Union allowed Scottish aristocracy to write off their own insolvency in exchange for handing over Scotland without a fight.


Ironically England not having to soend decades conquering Scotland militarily and the per capita very high number of prominent Scots involved in Empire created the post colonial UK we have today. Which also became democratic enough to allow one it's regions a referendum on leaving.

LHW99

The Act of Union allowed Scottish aristocracy to write off their own insolvency in exchange for handing over Scotland without a fight.

Of course, around 150 years before that, the Scottish king had to be invited to take over the reins in England. Had his successors been a little more capable, it could be England asking for a vote of independence from Scotland. . .

antrobus

Arklight wrote: »

...Ironically England not having to soend decades conquering Scotland militarily ...

Even more ironically you appear to know little about Scottish history.:)

There was no conquering of Scotland militarily post 1707. Perhaps you are getting confused with the 15 and 45 which was about 'Scotland', or at least a bunch of highlanders and foreign mercenaries trying to conquer England militarily.

Or actually to restore the Stuart dynasty. I don't think either of the pretenders were in the slightest bit interested in reversing the Act of Union. After all, it was James I/VI who came up with the idea in the first place. You know, the chap who invented the 'Union Jack.

Arklight wrote: »

.
and the per capita very high number of prominent Scots involved in Empire created the post colonial UK we have today. Which also became democratic enough to allow one it's regions a referendum on leaving.

Time for that democratic decision to be respected, I'd have thought.:)

Shakethedisease

LHW99 wrote: »

Of course, around 150 years before that, the Scottish king had to be invited to take over the reins in England. Had his successors been a little more capable, it could be England asking for a vote of independence from Scotland. . .

All ancient history now and largely based on the fertility and/or religion of the ruling monarchy(s) at the time. But the difference now between Scotland and the situation in Spain :- is that while Catalonia seeks to secede while a region and part of Spain, Scotland would seek the dissolution of a Union it is part of, as a country not a region.

Scotland is internationally legally recognised as a country; even the UK’s self-description lodged at the UN since 1945 makes it clear that Scotland is a country. A country in union by treaty with another.

Subtle but important difference.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland is internationally legally recognised as a country; even the UK’s self-description lodged at the UN since 1945 makes it clear that Scotland is a country. A country in union by treaty with another.

Google says, 'No results found for "A country in union by treaty with another". And 'No results found for "Scotland is internationally legally recognised as a country".'

Can you provide a source for your 'quote'?

P.S. Perhaps you should read the Montevideo Convention.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Google says, 'No results found for "A country in union by treaty with another".

1707 dear. There was a Treaty signed between two countries ?

And 'No results found for "Scotland is internationally legally recognised as a country".'

Even Wikipedia does so I don't know where you were searching.

The United Kingdom consists of four countries—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.[17] The last three have devolved administrations,[18] each with varying powers,[19][20] based in their capitals, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, respectively. The nearby Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Guernsey and Bailiwick of Jersey are not part of the United Kingdom, being Crown dependencies with the British Government responsible for defence and international representation.[21] The relationships among the countries of the UK have changed over time.

Can you provide a source for your 'quote'?

P.S. Perhaps you should read the Montevideo Convention.

No I can't be bothered arguing about whether you personally think Scotland or England are really countries or not. We both know they are. Been round the block too many times here already on it. Sorry it's dancing on the head of a pin.

And in any case.. 2014. The point I was making was that the UK govt by going along with Salmond and the referendum he proposed, explicitly admitted that Scotland's electorate does have the right to vote on it's own future governance. The result of the vote was No... but the right to vote on it wasn't questioned much at the time.

While I am under no illusions that a second ref will ever be granted by the likes of May. Legally they're totally stuffed saying that Scotland doesn't have the right to vote on it at all, or in future or perhaps via a Scottish General Election or whatever. 2014 says Scotland does, as a country have the right to vote on whether to dissolve the 1707 Treaty of Union or not. We've already done so and the UK Govt agreed that Scotland has the right to vote and leave the UK if that's they way a vote goes on the matter.

What happened to Catalonia can't happen to Scotland

At present, however, it is the difference between the two cases that most strikes the observer. Scotland's referendum in 2014 was facilitated by the British government, which decided that this was the best way to defuse a politically explosive situation. It helped that the United Kingdom has a very flexible constitution so that there was no legal obstacle.

The key factor, however, was political. The UK has long been recognised as a voluntary union of nations and successive governments in recent years have recognised that they cannot be kept in the union against their will. This contrasts sharply with their attitude to Ireland and hundred years ago.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/happened-catalonia-happen-scotland-171030134957987.html

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

While I am under no illusions that a second ref will ever be granted by the likes of May. Legally they're totally stuffed saying that Scotland doesn't have the right to vote on it at all, or in future or perhaps via a Scottish General Election or whatever. 2014 says Scotland does, as a country have the right to vote on whether to dissolve the 1707 Treaty of Union or not. We've already done so and the UK Govt agreed that Scotland has the right to vote and leave the UK if that's they way a vote goes on the matter.

As you well know the biggest obstacle to Scottish independence is the Scots themselves. You bleat about Westminster not giving you the vote and being ‘legally stuffed’ if they deny you the right to vote but the fact is, despite your desperation to perpetuate a grievance, Scotland is treated very well by the UK and is free to leave as soon as enough Scots agree with you.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

1707 dear. There was a Treaty signed between two countries ?

Oh double dear.:rotfl:

You posted the following quote

Scotland is internationally legally recognised as a country; even the UK’s self-description lodged at the UN since 1945 makes it clear that Scotland is a country. A country in union by treaty with another.

What the bleep has the Act of Union of 1707 got to with a "self-description lodged at the UN since 1945"?

Please provide a source for your 'quote'. You don't want people thinking that you are making things up:)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Even Wikipedia does so I don't know where you were searching. No I can't be bothered arguing about whether you personally think Scotland or England are really countries or not. We both know they are. Been round the block too many times here already on it. Sorry it's dancing on the head of a pin.

Now you are making things up. I have never said that Scotland was not a country.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And in any case.. 2014. The point I was making was that the UK govt by going along with Salmond and the referendum he proposed, explicitly admitted that Scotland's electorate does have the right to vote on it's own future governance. The result of the vote was No... but the right to vote on it wasn't questioned much at the time.

While I am under no illusions that a second ref will ever be granted by the likes of May. Legally they're totally stuffed saying that Scotland doesn't have the right to vote on it at all, or in future or perhaps via a Scottish General Election or whatever. 2014 says Scotland does, as a country have the right to vote on whether to dissolve the 1707 Treaty of Union or not. We've already done so and the UK Govt agreed that Scotland has the right to vote and leave the UK if that's they way a vote goes on the matter.

In 2014 the Scottish government agreed that it needed the authority of the UK government to hold a referendum. See the Edinburgh Agreemnet. Signed by a certain N Sturgeon. So it's the SNP who are legally stuffed.:)

The UK has a very simple constitution reaaly, Parliament is sovereign. Or Crown in Parliament if you want to be really picky. The constitution is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998; i.e. Holyrood has naff all authority to fiddle with the constition.

Someone in Scotland might well decide to 'hold a vote' on any issue they fancy. The UK Parliament can simply ignore it and carry on as normal.

I know I've told you this before, so you really should know it by now.

molerat

The UK has long been recognised as a voluntary union of nations and successive governments in recent years have recognised that they cannot be kept in the union against their will.

The Scottish people were given the opportunity to leave the union and, in a "once in a lifetime" referendum, democratically voted to stay in. The problem is that democracy does not sit well with the autocratic SNP.

Shakethedisease

molerat wrote: »

The Scottish people were given the opportunity to leave the union and, in a "once in a lifetime" referendum, democratically voted to stay in. The problem is that democracy does not sit well with the autocratic SNP.

If there's Brexit s**t storm to come due to leaving the Single Market..and it starts hitting pockets in Scotland very hard. Calls for a second indy ref won't be coming just from the 'autocratic' SNP. And it's this which is really frightening folks like Kevin Hague into starting new think tanks. And why Chris Deerin opinion pieces are shifting gear. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/stars-back-group-that-will-argue-for-united-britain-cvz6tjnwx

The above is hardly a reaction to a group who are feeling all cozy and secure about a once in a lifetime ref not happening again is it ?. No, they know what's coming should things start going very badly wrong in the next few years, perhaps sooner, with Brexit. *The SNP need do nothing more right now than keep their heads down and wait. The people will come to them demanding Single Market access and a referendum to get it when the jobs, manufacturing and the farms start going.

The Scottish Referendum wasn't intended to be once in a lifetime anyway. That was just something Salmond said to get the vote out, nothing more. But by 2014 happening at all.. means the Scottish situation isn't comparable to Catalonia.

* assumes a non-Norway type Brexit.