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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It was advisory. I'd invite you to recognise that fact too.

Yeah, which is why a vote in Westminster, if that comes to pass, will be the only thing that will stop it from happening. Not a Scottish advisory independence referendum.

Conrad

Ruth Davidsons moment, I think she will get behind Brexit now regardless of what she's said previously, and will pretty much humiliate Sturgeon

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Yeah, which is why a vote in Westminster, if that comes to pass, will be the only thing that will stop it from happening. Not a Scottish advisory independence referendum.

Self determination isn't for Westminster MP's to have a vote on. That's for Scottish voters. Advisory or not, Westminster have shown that once these issues become political rather than legal in nature, they have to recognise them regardless.

Shakethedisease

Conrad wrote: »

Ruth Davidsons moment, I think she will get behind Brexit now regardless of what she's said previously, and will pretty much humiliate Sturgeon

She's gotten behind Brexit sure enough. But it's to much laughter and amusement given her previous stance not long ago on UK tv in front of millions. The kid gloves in the Scottish media seem to have come off as well.

There's not really much she can do apart from carp from the sidelines. Am sure she'll be the 'face' of any second BetterTogether entity which comes to the fore. A lot of us pro independence types are really hoping so. Unionist columnists, not so much...

Kenny Farquharson Ruth Davidson would be a disaster as leader of the No campaign in indyref2. My column in @thetimes today.

Pawky patter has not turned electorate Tory

Kenny Farquharson
The idea that Ruth Davidson should lead the No campaign fundamentally misidentifies swing voters in a second indyref

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Self determination isn't for Westminster MP's to have a vote on. That's for Scottish voters. Advisory or not, Westminster have shown that once these issues become political rather than legal in nature, they have to recognise them regardless.

Self determination is a different matter entirely to a recognised referendum. The UN will need to get involved and other nations will have to recognise your independence from the UK.

elantan

Conrad wrote: »

Ruth Davidsons moment, I think she will get behind Brexit now regardless of what she's said previously, and will pretty much humiliate Sturgeon

I really hope she tries again ... I like watching her being slapped down

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Self determination is a different matter entirely to a recognised referendum. The UN will need to get involved and other nations will have to recognise your independence from the UK.

No that's UDI ( unilateral declaration of independence ). A referendum which is held in Scotland democratically with international oversight/observers should be fine with everyone else recognising it as what the Scots themselves want in terms of who they are governed by in future.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No that's UDI ( unilateral declaration of independence ). A referendum which is held in Scotland democratically with international oversight/observers should be fine with everyone else recognising it as what the Scots themselves want in terms of who they are governed by in future.

You've got them mixed up.

UDI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_independence

Where the "state" claiming UDI is not in all cases recognised, hence the word unilateral.

Self Determination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

Enshrined in international law, where the UN is the authority.

Edit: Holding a referendum that is not recognised by the UN, other countries internationally and in particular the UK will put you into a state of UDI. Similar to Crimea. Self-determination where a referendum is recognised by the UN and other countries internationally might have a case where the UK does not formally recognise it.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You've got them mixed up.

UDI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_independence

Where the "state" claiming UDI is not in all cases recognised, hence the word unilateral.

Self Determination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

Enshrined in international law, where the UN is the authority.

Yes and forgive me.. but my point was where does Westminster 'having a vote' come into this as you seem to think ?

The right of nations to self-determination (fromI][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker) is a cardinal principle in modern international law ... 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 interference

This is a question for Scots residents and voters to decide on, no one else.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes and forgive me.. but my point was where does Westminster 'having a vote' come into this as you seem to think ?

This is a question for Scots residents and voters to decide on, no one else.

The point about Westminster was simply about what will stop a UK exit from the EU.

A Scottish referendum on independence won't do that for Scotland if it's not recognised. It'll just be a glorified poll of opinion.

Granted the UK government could and I would say should address that referendum result, but not to the detriment of the remaining population of the UK. In the same way the EU will not address the result of the EU referendum in the UK prior to article 50 so as not to be to the detriment of the members and citizens of the EU. Therefore I would fully expect them to address it once the deal with the EU is clear and not before on an SNP timeline. Then Scottish people will then know the choices on offer.

I see nothing ill-advised or foolish about this approach.