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

Shakethedisease

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 votes on issue's Westminster have deemed reserved and which the Scottish Parliament have so far failed to act upon, either by holding a referendum or challenging in court whether or not they need Westminster approval. Again though, it was you that claimed we can't use Holyrood or Westminster results as a mandate for anything as it doesn't represent the Indy vote correctly.
If you want to try and convince Westminster to grant approval for a vote that would require 50% of the electorate to vote in favor of, then a mandate of some form that shows more than 50% of the electorate actually want Indy would be a start (which you can't do)
Majorities in Parliaments mean nothing when you try and legislate on matters you have no authority to legislate on, yes.
Adding up how many seats/votes (in proportional representation) is exactly how democracy works... The SNP have a minority government, propped up by the Greens that are voting through issues that they did not run with in their manifesto. The LibDems were virtually destroyed in Westminster for doing the same in their power sharing agreement with the Conservatives, but apparently its fine for the Greens to do as it fits your agenda. 
Also worth noting that FPTP is irrelevant when talking about Holyrood.

You're missing the point. A referendum on Scottish independence is nothing to do with Westminster. Only if there's a Yes vote does it become a Westminster concern. There is no route now whereby Scotland can regain it's independence without direct confrontation with Westminster and dispensing with any Westminster authority on the matter. Many in the movement are just starting to accept this having pinned hopes on Section 30's and Boris or May somehow 'coming round' to 'allowing' a referendum. This was/is never going to happen when there's a decent chance of a Yes vote. Myself and many like me have no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything.

I can totally understand why Nicola Sturgeon might be reluctant to dispense with all Westminster dicatat on the next referendum. She's cautious and moderate and it's going to start a s**t storm of epic proportions. With the media once again going into a feeding frenzy ( they're already trying to blame the SNP for a bridge closure due to bad weather... it's ridiculous ). Salmond's trial will be another one. But sooner or later it has to be faced and gotten on with. Perhaps the timing might be better when businesses up and down the country are freaking out over no EU trade deals in a few months time. But sooner or later Holyrood will have to defy Westminster. Westminster approval or not I'm afraid. Even a court case may well just end up with Westminster legislating to ban Scottish referendums altogether. Things could get very nasty indeed so yes, I can understand her reluctance.

FPTP I was pointing out that if Holyrood elections were on the same basis as Westminster ones then the SNP would have most of the seats in Holyrood. There's too much confusion over how Holyrood parliaments are elected. The SNP lost their majority last time because despite nearly a million votes on the list... they only gained 4 seats. They did far too well in the constituency seats. This is why I think looking at a second indy party standing only on the list, if they can get it right, may well be worth thinking about next year if Nicola still hasn't acted decisively. .

Again, you are confusing your opinion with facts. A Scottish referendum has an effect on Westminster/rUK regardless of the vote. A Yes vote puts the Union in jeopardy, a No vote affirms the Union, add on top of that that if a second referendum is held it sets a precedent that Holryood can decide to hold one whenever they want, which dilutes the reserved issue that Westminster currently feels applies to this. 

Unless the SNP change direction or one of these other radical Indy parties you keep mentioning actually forms, runs in elections and gets a power share then that's where we are. You wanting to hold another ref and having "no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything" means nothing, its just an opinion and empty statement unless you all group together and actually do something about it.

The facts are that at some point in order to hold a second independence referendum Holyrood will have to go against Westminster. There's no getting around that now. A court case is already running, just not by the SNP. And the instigator of it ( and 1887 others ) did so deliberately in order to take the heat off the SNP by all accounts. I guess we'll see what response if any they get tommorrow before they proceed further. Other indy parties, will be decided upon round about April as far as I'm aware.

As for your post above you need to do some reading. Whether or not the Scottish Parliament can run an indy ref is contentious and has never been tested in court. Please do some reading before proclaiming to all what is reserved and what isn't. It's an unknown so please stop repeating what is only your own opinion as facts to others who might not be aware of this.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/02/13/iain-halliday-can-the-scottish-parliament-legislate-for-a-second-independence-referendum/

Reserved matters include the constitution. Your own parliament says so.

https://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx

but you keep on posting figments of your imagination if you wish.

Erm we're talking about referendums and holding them. Referendums aren't reserved at all. However, without a section 30 an indy ref means court.

Referendum first. Then you can worry about the consequences for the reserved constitution. 

Enterprise_1701C

Shakethedisease said:

Right. So you think the whole of the EU should've had a vote on the UK leaving ? 



Whatever you say, technically the UK is one nation.  Unless you believe that the eu is one nation (give them time) then that comment is irrelevant.

zagubov

No the EU. like the UK, is also a union, even though unlike the UK it's not a nation.

On the other hand, the USSR was a nation; are you suggesting that all of Russia etc. should have voted on whether the  Baltic states should be free? The union was ten times bigger than them.

Same situation with Serbia and Montenegro.

Moe_The_Bartender

Shakethedisease said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 votes on issue's Westminster have deemed reserved and which the Scottish Parliament have so far failed to act upon, either by holding a referendum or challenging in court whether or not they need Westminster approval. Again though, it was you that claimed we can't use Holyrood or Westminster results as a mandate for anything as it doesn't represent the Indy vote correctly.
If you want to try and convince Westminster to grant approval for a vote that would require 50% of the electorate to vote in favor of, then a mandate of some form that shows more than 50% of the electorate actually want Indy would be a start (which you can't do)
Majorities in Parliaments mean nothing when you try and legislate on matters you have no authority to legislate on, yes.
Adding up how many seats/votes (in proportional representation) is exactly how democracy works... The SNP have a minority government, propped up by the Greens that are voting through issues that they did not run with in their manifesto. The LibDems were virtually destroyed in Westminster for doing the same in their power sharing agreement with the Conservatives, but apparently its fine for the Greens to do as it fits your agenda. 
Also worth noting that FPTP is irrelevant when talking about Holyrood.

You're missing the point. A referendum on Scottish independence is nothing to do with Westminster. Only if there's a Yes vote does it become a Westminster concern. There is no route now whereby Scotland can regain it's independence without direct confrontation with Westminster and dispensing with any Westminster authority on the matter. Many in the movement are just starting to accept this having pinned hopes on Section 30's and Boris or May somehow 'coming round' to 'allowing' a referendum. This was/is never going to happen when there's a decent chance of a Yes vote. Myself and many like me have no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything.

I can totally understand why Nicola Sturgeon might be reluctant to dispense with all Westminster dicatat on the next referendum. She's cautious and moderate and it's going to start a s**t storm of epic proportions. With the media once again going into a feeding frenzy ( they're already trying to blame the SNP for a bridge closure due to bad weather... it's ridiculous ). Salmond's trial will be another one. But sooner or later it has to be faced and gotten on with. Perhaps the timing might be better when businesses up and down the country are freaking out over no EU trade deals in a few months time. But sooner or later Holyrood will have to defy Westminster. Westminster approval or not I'm afraid. Even a court case may well just end up with Westminster legislating to ban Scottish referendums altogether. Things could get very nasty indeed so yes, I can understand her reluctance.

FPTP I was pointing out that if Holyrood elections were on the same basis as Westminster ones then the SNP would have most of the seats in Holyrood. There's too much confusion over how Holyrood parliaments are elected. The SNP lost their majority last time because despite nearly a million votes on the list... they only gained 4 seats. They did far too well in the constituency seats. This is why I think looking at a second indy party standing only on the list, if they can get it right, may well be worth thinking about next year if Nicola still hasn't acted decisively. .

Again, you are confusing your opinion with facts. A Scottish referendum has an effect on Westminster/rUK regardless of the vote. A Yes vote puts the Union in jeopardy, a No vote affirms the Union, add on top of that that if a second referendum is held it sets a precedent that Holryood can decide to hold one whenever they want, which dilutes the reserved issue that Westminster currently feels applies to this. 

Unless the SNP change direction or one of these other radical Indy parties you keep mentioning actually forms, runs in elections and gets a power share then that's where we are. You wanting to hold another ref and having "no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything" means nothing, its just an opinion and empty statement unless you all group together and actually do something about it.

The facts are that at some point in order to hold a second independence referendum Holyrood will have to go against Westminster. There's no getting around that now. A court case is already running, just not by the SNP. And the instigator of it ( and 1887 others ) did so deliberately in order to take the heat off the SNP by all accounts. I guess we'll see what response if any they get tommorrow before they proceed further. Other indy parties, will be decided upon round about April as far as I'm aware.

As for your post above you need to do some reading. Whether or not the Scottish Parliament can run an indy ref is contentious and has never been tested in court. Please do some reading before proclaiming to all what is reserved and what isn't. It's an unknown so please stop repeating what is only your own opinion as facts to others who might not be aware of this.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/02/13/iain-halliday-can-the-scottish-parliament-legislate-for-a-second-independence-referendum/

Reserved matters include the constitution. Your own parliament says so.

https://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx

but you keep on posting figments of your imagination if you wish.

Erm we're talking about referendums and holding them. Referendums aren't reserved at all. However, without a section 30 an indy ref means court.

Referendum first. Then you can worry about the consequences for the reserved constitution. 

Of course you are. You can hold as many referendums as you want but they won’t change a thing. I think you are the one who should be worrying about reserved matters. I couldn’t care less.

abz88

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 votes on issue's Westminster have deemed reserved and which the Scottish Parliament have so far failed to act upon, either by holding a referendum or challenging in court whether or not they need Westminster approval. Again though, it was you that claimed we can't use Holyrood or Westminster results as a mandate for anything as it doesn't represent the Indy vote correctly.
If you want to try and convince Westminster to grant approval for a vote that would require 50% of the electorate to vote in favor of, then a mandate of some form that shows more than 50% of the electorate actually want Indy would be a start (which you can't do)
Majorities in Parliaments mean nothing when you try and legislate on matters you have no authority to legislate on, yes.
Adding up how many seats/votes (in proportional representation) is exactly how democracy works... The SNP have a minority government, propped up by the Greens that are voting through issues that they did not run with in their manifesto. The LibDems were virtually destroyed in Westminster for doing the same in their power sharing agreement with the Conservatives, but apparently its fine for the Greens to do as it fits your agenda. 
Also worth noting that FPTP is irrelevant when talking about Holyrood.

You're missing the point. A referendum on Scottish independence is nothing to do with Westminster. Only if there's a Yes vote does it become a Westminster concern. There is no route now whereby Scotland can regain it's independence without direct confrontation with Westminster and dispensing with any Westminster authority on the matter. Many in the movement are just starting to accept this having pinned hopes on Section 30's and Boris or May somehow 'coming round' to 'allowing' a referendum. This was/is never going to happen when there's a decent chance of a Yes vote. Myself and many like me have no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything.

I can totally understand why Nicola Sturgeon might be reluctant to dispense with all Westminster dicatat on the next referendum. She's cautious and moderate and it's going to start a s**t storm of epic proportions. With the media once again going into a feeding frenzy ( they're already trying to blame the SNP for a bridge closure due to bad weather... it's ridiculous ). Salmond's trial will be another one. But sooner or later it has to be faced and gotten on with. Perhaps the timing might be better when businesses up and down the country are freaking out over no EU trade deals in a few months time. But sooner or later Holyrood will have to defy Westminster. Westminster approval or not I'm afraid. Even a court case may well just end up with Westminster legislating to ban Scottish referendums altogether. Things could get very nasty indeed so yes, I can understand her reluctance.

FPTP I was pointing out that if Holyrood elections were on the same basis as Westminster ones then the SNP would have most of the seats in Holyrood. There's too much confusion over how Holyrood parliaments are elected. The SNP lost their majority last time because despite nearly a million votes on the list... they only gained 4 seats. They did far too well in the constituency seats. This is why I think looking at a second indy party standing only on the list, if they can get it right, may well be worth thinking about next year if Nicola still hasn't acted decisively. .

Again, you are confusing your opinion with facts. A Scottish referendum has an effect on Westminster/rUK regardless of the vote. A Yes vote puts the Union in jeopardy, a No vote affirms the Union, add on top of that that if a second referendum is held it sets a precedent that Holryood can decide to hold one whenever they want, which dilutes the reserved issue that Westminster currently feels applies to this. 

Unless the SNP change direction or one of these other radical Indy parties you keep mentioning actually forms, runs in elections and gets a power share then that's where we are. You wanting to hold another ref and having "no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything" means nothing, its just an opinion and empty statement unless you all group together and actually do something about it.

The facts are that at some point in order to hold a second independence referendum Holyrood will have to go against Westminster. There's no getting around that now. A court case is already running, just not by the SNP. And the instigator of it ( and 1887 others ) did so deliberately in order to take the heat off the SNP by all accounts. I guess we'll see what response if any they get tommorrow before they proceed further. Other indy parties, will be decided upon round about April as far as I'm aware.

As for your post above you need to do some reading. Whether or not the Scottish Parliament can run an indy ref is contentious and has never been tested in court. Please do some reading before proclaiming to all what is reserved and what isn't. It's an unknown so please stop repeating what is only your own opinion as facts to others who might not be aware of this.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/02/13/iain-halliday-can-the-scottish-parliament-legislate-for-a-second-independence-referendum/

That's if they want to go to court over it, so far it appears the Scottish Government are against that idea. A court case isn't yet running pre-litigation correspondence has been submitted. The Attorney General has stated "The United Kingdom Government's position is that is is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for and hold a referendum on Scottish Independence." I don't believe Forward as One has actioned a court case as of yet.
So whether or not the Scottish Parliament can run an Indy ref is currently not accepted by the UK Government, it is up to Indy parties/people/groups to legally challenge that. Until they do, and until they are successful it is a reserved matter, something that both Westminster and Holyrood seem to accept given Holyrood have not attempt to hold a referendum and have not attempted to take it to court themselves.
The opinion you have linked effectively says they might be able to hold one because it would have no legal effect only a political one OR they might not be able to hold one because of the political effect of it. Either way, Westminster could very easily say "you held a referendum with no legal effect, we told you it had no legal effect which is why Unionist voters didn't bother voting in it."

abz88

zagubov said:

No the EU. like the UK, is also a union, even though unlike the UK it's not a nation.

On the other hand, the USSR was a nation; are you suggesting that all of Russia etc. should have voted on whether the  Baltic states should be free? The union was ten times bigger than them.

Same situation with Serbia and Montenegro.

The USSR was formed as a Union of Socialist Republics but it did not join them into a single nation and the original treaty even included what authorities that would be retained by the individual Republic that joined the Union.
The UK was formed as two kingdoms joining to become one kingdom. Nowhere did it state the previous kingdoms would retain any powers separate form the UK (unlike with the USSR).

Not really sure how that relates to Scottish Indy Refs? Did any of the Balkan states hold a referendum sanctioned by the USSR/Russia, vote to remain as part of USSR/Russia and then have their local Balkan Governments ignore that vote and try and force Indy on them regardless?

Shakethedisease

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 votes on issue's Westminster have deemed reserved and which the Scottish Parliament have so far failed to act upon, either by holding a referendum or challenging in court whether or not they need Westminster approval. Again though, it was you that claimed we can't use Holyrood or Westminster results as a mandate for anything as it doesn't represent the Indy vote correctly.
If you want to try and convince Westminster to grant approval for a vote that would require 50% of the electorate to vote in favor of, then a mandate of some form that shows more than 50% of the electorate actually want Indy would be a start (which you can't do)
Majorities in Parliaments mean nothing when you try and legislate on matters you have no authority to legislate on, yes.
Adding up how many seats/votes (in proportional representation) is exactly how democracy works... The SNP have a minority government, propped up by the Greens that are voting through issues that they did not run with in their manifesto. The LibDems were virtually destroyed in Westminster for doing the same in their power sharing agreement with the Conservatives, but apparently its fine for the Greens to do as it fits your agenda. 
Also worth noting that FPTP is irrelevant when talking about Holyrood.

You're missing the point. A referendum on Scottish independence is nothing to do with Westminster. Only if there's a Yes vote does it become a Westminster concern. There is no route now whereby Scotland can regain it's independence without direct confrontation with Westminster and dispensing with any Westminster authority on the matter. Many in the movement are just starting to accept this having pinned hopes on Section 30's and Boris or May somehow 'coming round' to 'allowing' a referendum. This was/is never going to happen when there's a decent chance of a Yes vote. Myself and many like me have no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything.

I can totally understand why Nicola Sturgeon might be reluctant to dispense with all Westminster dicatat on the next referendum. She's cautious and moderate and it's going to start a s**t storm of epic proportions. With the media once again going into a feeding frenzy ( they're already trying to blame the SNP for a bridge closure due to bad weather... it's ridiculous ). Salmond's trial will be another one. But sooner or later it has to be faced and gotten on with. Perhaps the timing might be better when businesses up and down the country are freaking out over no EU trade deals in a few months time. But sooner or later Holyrood will have to defy Westminster. Westminster approval or not I'm afraid. Even a court case may well just end up with Westminster legislating to ban Scottish referendums altogether. Things could get very nasty indeed so yes, I can understand her reluctance.

FPTP I was pointing out that if Holyrood elections were on the same basis as Westminster ones then the SNP would have most of the seats in Holyrood. There's too much confusion over how Holyrood parliaments are elected. The SNP lost their majority last time because despite nearly a million votes on the list... they only gained 4 seats. They did far too well in the constituency seats. This is why I think looking at a second indy party standing only on the list, if they can get it right, may well be worth thinking about next year if Nicola still hasn't acted decisively. .

Again, you are confusing your opinion with facts. A Scottish referendum has an effect on Westminster/rUK regardless of the vote. A Yes vote puts the Union in jeopardy, a No vote affirms the Union, add on top of that that if a second referendum is held it sets a precedent that Holryood can decide to hold one whenever they want, which dilutes the reserved issue that Westminster currently feels applies to this. 

Unless the SNP change direction or one of these other radical Indy parties you keep mentioning actually forms, runs in elections and gets a power share then that's where we are. You wanting to hold another ref and having "no interest in the SNP or any indy minded entity convincing Westminster of anything" means nothing, its just an opinion and empty statement unless you all group together and actually do something about it.

The facts are that at some point in order to hold a second independence referendum Holyrood will have to go against Westminster. There's no getting around that now. A court case is already running, just not by the SNP. And the instigator of it ( and 1887 others ) did so deliberately in order to take the heat off the SNP by all accounts. I guess we'll see what response if any they get tommorrow before they proceed further. Other indy parties, will be decided upon round about April as far as I'm aware.

As for your post above you need to do some reading. Whether or not the Scottish Parliament can run an indy ref is contentious and has never been tested in court. Please do some reading before proclaiming to all what is reserved and what isn't. It's an unknown so please stop repeating what is only your own opinion as facts to others who might not be aware of this.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/02/13/iain-halliday-can-the-scottish-parliament-legislate-for-a-second-independence-referendum/

That's if they want to go to court over it, so far it appears the Scottish Government are against that idea. A court case isn't yet running pre-litigation correspondence has been submitted. The Attorney General has stated "The United Kingdom Government's position is that is is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for and hold a referendum on Scottish Independence." I don't believe Forward as One has actioned a court case as of yet.
So whether or not the Scottish Parliament can run an Indy ref is currently not accepted by the UK Government, it is up to Indy parties/people/groups to legally challenge that. Until they do, and until they are successful it is a reserved matter, something that both Westminster and Holyrood seem to accept given Holyrood have not attempt to hold a referendum and have not attempted to take it to court themselves.
The opinion you have linked effectively says they might be able to hold one because it would have no legal effect only a political one OR they might not be able to hold one because of the political effect of it. Either way, Westminster could very easily say "you held a referendum with no legal effect, we told you it had no legal effect which is why Unionist voters didn't bother voting in it."

Court papers will be filed this week or so :- "We've already done the first round of funding. Court papers are already being prepared. Will be filed in the next week or so."  The SNP/Greens can just sit back and watch the show for now. Good luck to them, and the response from the UK Govt was hardly a surprise.

 The rest of your post isn't even vaguely news to anyone following Scottish politics. As I said Holyrood organising an indy ref is legally 'untested and unknown' not explicitly reserved as you claimed. That Westminster will fail to recognise a Yes win goes without saying. It's what Holyrood and the Scottish electorate do after that which is of interest. They're hardly likely to just accept a no from Westminster are they, and shrug shoulders with a wry oh well...  Is that what you think is going to happen ?

Shakethedisease

abz88 said:

zagubov said:

No the EU. like the UK, is also a union, even though unlike the UK it's not a nation.

On the other hand, the USSR was a nation; are you suggesting that all of Russia etc. should have voted on whether the  Baltic states should be free? The union was ten times bigger than them.

Same situation with Serbia and Montenegro.

The USSR was formed as a Union of Socialist Republics but it did not join them into a single nation and the original treaty even included what authorities that would be retained by the individual Republic that joined the Union.
The UK was formed as two kingdoms joining to become one kingdom. Nowhere did it state the previous kingdoms would retain any powers separate form the UK (unlike with the USSR).

Not really sure how that relates to Scottish Indy Refs? Did any of the Balkan states hold a referendum sanctioned by the USSR/Russia, vote to remain as part of USSR/Russia and then have their local Balkan Governments ignore that vote and try and force Indy on them regardless?

Scotland maintained it's own law, education and church. And while a new state was created by the Treaty of Union, it didn't extinguish England and Scotland as nations.

Thrugelmir

Good to see that the name NatWest is being reinstated and that UK taxpayers are receiving a further dividend. Fred Goodwins folly will remain a constant reminder of how the great have fallen from grace. 

zagubov

abz88 said:

zagubov said:

No the EU. like the UK, is also a union, even though unlike the UK it's not a nation.

On the other hand, the USSR was a nation; are you suggesting that all of Russia etc. should have voted on whether the  Baltic states should be free? The union was ten times bigger than them.

Same situation with Serbia and Montenegro.

The USSR was formed as a Union of Socialist Republics but it did not join them into a single nation and the original treaty even included what authorities that would be retained by the individual Republic that joined the Union.
The UK was formed as two kingdoms joining to become one kingdom. Nowhere did it state the previous kingdoms would retain any powers separate form the UK (unlike with the USSR).

Not really sure how that relates to Scottish Indy Refs? Did any of the Balkan states hold a referendum sanctioned by the USSR/Russia, vote to remain as part of USSR/Russia and then have their local Balkan Governments ignore that vote and try and force Indy on them regardless?

Let's not get the Baltics and the Balkans muddled up!
They're examples of countries  made of smaller countries where the smaller members of each union decided to leave but the larger members didn't take part in the decision.  Each seceding part was about one-tenth of the size of the wider union, a bit like Scotland and the UK.