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

Enterprise_1701C

Surely you realise though that the Union is a reserved matter and, as such, Scotland does not have the power to declare independence unilaterally, as indeed do none of the nations that comprise the UK.

If Sturgeon is so convinced she could win she would have held a referendum by now if it were legal. Mind you, if she held one and it actually fell in her favour she would find it very hard to function as an independent country, Scotland would be considered a pariah and a lot of countries with concerns over independence factions within their country would not want Scotland within the eu.

Herzlos

It's a pretty odd Union of supposed equals if some of those equals aren't allowed a say in that union.


If we don't have a say in the Union, then we're not in a Union but are in fact just a province?

zagubov

Herzlos wrote: »

It's a pretty odd Union of supposed equals if some of those equals aren't allowed a say in that union.


If we don't have a say in the Union, then we're not in a Union but are in fact just a province?

Or a victim of a protection racket.

mayonnaise

Herzlos wrote: »

It's a pretty odd Union of supposed equals if some of those equals aren't allowed a say in that union.


If we don't have a say in the Union, then we're not in a Union but are in fact just a province?

On a choice of two unions, Scotland will choose the European one which is structurally a partnership of equals, and not the UK one, which is an imperial England draped in nothing more than flimsy pretence.

Malthusian

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Surely you realise though that the Union is a reserved matter and, as such, Scotland does not have the power to declare independence unilaterally, as indeed do none of the nations that comprise the UK.

As long as it can resist any military invasion from the rUK, then of course it has the power. RUK may have the firepower but does it really have the appetite for an invasion of Scotland?

The entire point of independence is that it doesn't matter whether your former colonisers agree to it or not.

If Sturgeon is so convinced she could win she would have held a referendum by now if it were legal. Mind you, if she held one and it actually fell in her favour she would find it very hard to function as an independent country, Scotland would be considered a pariah and a lot of countries with concerns over independence factions within their country would not want Scotland within the eu.

If that was actually a deal-breaker the ex-Yugoslavia nations wouldn't have been allowed to join. The reality is that it really doesn't matter that much, the Catalans are going to riot every now and again whether a free Scotland is in the EU or not.

Moe_The_Bartender

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Westminster may well ignore the result.

Why wouldn’t they if 20% of the electorate vote and win by 100% to zero? Have you already forgotten the sham referendum in Catalonia?

What would Sturgeon do? Declare UDI?

.string.

Herzlos wrote: »

It's a pretty odd Union of supposed equals if some of those equals aren't allowed a say in that union.


If we don't have a say in the Union, then we're not in a Union but are in fact just a province?

Scotland and England were two countries when they were united in a Union under a Scottish King. After that time neither Scotland nor England were countries any more, having been merged into one country.

Tromking

.string. wrote: »

Scotland and England were two countries when they were united in a Union under a Scottish King. After that time neither Scotland nor England were countries any more, having been merged into one country.

To be fair to Herzlos, as a foreign born Scottish Nationalist, rudimentary British history is not his/her strongpoint.
His/her knowledge such as it is, seems to based on the SNP’s grievance based narrative on Scotland’s relationship with the Union.
You’d think that a ‘Johnny-come-lately foreigner’ would educate themselves before they became an advocate of breaking up our precious Union.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Scotland and England were two countries when they were united in a Union under a Scottish King. After that time neither Scotland nor England were countries any more, having been merged into one country.

Nope, sorry. Perhaps you'd be best leaving this sort of thing to the experts.

The 1707 Parliamentary union between England and Scotland undoubtedly created a new State, but it did not create one Nation.

Various schemes for a wholly incorporating ‘perfect’ Union of Scotland and England had, unsuccessfully, been proposed to the English Parliament by James VI, King of Scots, after he had acceded to the English throne in 1603. The 1707 Union differed from these earlier schemes. The Treaty and Acts of Union in 1707 allowed for, but did notthemselves effect, any harmonisation of the systems of public law as between Scotland and England.

And while ensuring the de-politicisation of Scotland, the Treaty put into place measures intended to protect -and indeed to strengthen -other aspects of Scotland’s distinctive continuing nationhood: notably its distinct and distinctive legal, ecclesiastical and educational systems.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bkihw5dbltfwpv/Advice%20of%20Senior%20Counsel%20%28FINAL%20at%2014-01-2020%20at%201218%29.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR2viHO_BL5u4tukOKkOk_HfajhC8T9wB10bggSlZ68Gcb96d6H7RDudous

Shakethedisease

Scotland is in this union by consent. Telling an entire nation that their votes no longer matter and that democracy is conditional on who and what they vote for.. is storing up massive trouble.