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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're talking about UDI, not a democratic referendum to indicate Scots wishes of self-determination. A referendum will do the job of self-determination which is why the SNP will always go this route.



No. No assets nor continuation status, no debt. The SNP's position is to negotiate continuator status. But not everyone on the pro-independence side of the debate agrees.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/25/the-fiction-of-the-continuing-state/



Is an fascinating debate for those with a passing interest. But the mainstream position on this, and certainly as far as the SNP is concerned.. is should there be a Yes vote in future.. for Scotland and England to dissolve the Union and then split everything including debt fairly via negotiations and that Scotland/England will both continue with former UK treaties applicable.

Except we went through this before and I had to post links to what UDI actually was and what self-determination actually meant.

In a nutshell...

UDI doesn't involve the UN charter.

Self-determination does.

You will not go down the route of UDI, that would be even more of a quagmire than self-determination would be.

For example, for self-determination see Crimea, for UDI see Kosovo. Hardly without their legal problems. Quite clear I wasn't talking about UDI.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Except we went through this before and I had to post links to what UDI actually was and what self-determination actually meant.

In a nutshell...

UDI doesn't involve the UN charter.

Self-determination does.

You will not go down the route of UDI, that would be even more of a quagmire than self-determination would be.

For example, for self-determination see Crimea, for UDI see Kosovo. Hardly without their legal problems. Quite clear I wasn't talking about UDI.

No, I agree with you. Scotland won't go the UDI route, only via referendum which is what I said. But the UN Charter's definition of self determination and rights to do so would apply to that referendum.

Independence isn't Westminsters gift to give I'm afraid. Not in a Union of two nations where one of them votes to leave. Any more than it would be up to the EU to have the final say on if the UK could leave the European Union.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, I agree with you. Scotland won't go the UDI route, only via referendum which is what I said. But the UN Charter's definition of self determination and rights to do so would apply to that referendum.

Independence isn't Westminsters gift to give I'm afraid. Not in a Union of two nations where one of them votes to leave. Any more than it would be up to the EU to have the final say on if the UK could leave the European Union.

The act of Union can only be repealed by Westminster.

Therefore unless Westminster grants consent for a binding referendum, it's not going to happen without UDI, and you know as well as I do that UDI will make any mess independence creates much worse for Scotland.

This isn't an opinion, it's a fact, it's demonstrable by the court case going through the supreme court right now.

If you believe that Scotland can block Brexit through the SC, which would be relying on law, why do you hold a view that Scotland can simply throw law, statue, legislation in the bin and declare independence without consent from the other members of the Union? There is no A50 in the UK. For Scotland to become independent by legal means, it is Westminsters gift to give. It was the case in 2014, and it'll be the case in the future.

Shakethedisease

Iain McWhirter is well annoyed about Sewell. Great piece explaining things well. Kudos for also getting the words jiggery pokery in there. ( Full article at link ).

Brexit's first casualty could be the Act of Union

But on the plus side, there are three things we can be pretty certain about as a result of last week's shenanigans in court and Parliament. Brexit will definitely happen, everyone has now accepted that. The Government will, however, almost certainly be defeated on its attempt to force through Article 50 under “royal prerogative” and will have to place a bill before Parliament that can be amended. Third, there will almost certainly have to be a new Scotland Act following Brexit that could remake or destroy the 300-year-old Union.

...But the UK Government's semantic jiggery pokery has caused great political damage to the Union. It looks as if the Brexit process is being used to undermine Holyrood and diminish its powers. The Scotland Act 2016 itself appears to many as a cynical attempt to lead Scots into thinking they had something like a federal parliament when they didn’t. The next time a bill is promised that gives Holyrood “extensive new powers” and “entrenches its constitutional status” it will be subjected to such withering scrutiny that it may be impossible to draft anything that can command the confidence of Scottish voters.

And new legislation will almost certainly be required. When the 1972 European Communities Act is repealed, the original 1998 Scotland Act itself will no longer have legal force. This is because Scottish devolution was based on EU law. Every act of the Scottish Parliament has to be in accordance with EU legislation, and Brussels lays down the law here directly on a whole range of matters, such as agriculture fisheries and the environment, which are nominally devolved to Holyrood.

Indeed, taking Britain out of Europe could leave Holyrood with pretty much a clean sheet because so many of its powers have in the past come from the EU. The question then is: who fills in the blanks? It is assumed that none of Scotland's existing powers would be removed as a result of this – but we simply don't know.

Scottish voters won't be fooled again. They're now wise to the ways in which weasel words like “normally” can be inserted into statutes to change their meaning.

As the Brexit process grinds on and on, and the constitutional anomalies mount between Scotland and the rest of the UK, there will be many on both sides of the Border who will be saying: stuff it – let's just scrap the Act of Union of 1707 and start again.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14959275.Iain_Macwhirter__Brexit_s_first_casualty_could_be_the_Act_of_Union/

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The act of Union can only be repealed by Westminster.

Therefore unless Westminster grants consent for a binding referendum, it's not going to happen without UDI, and you know as well as I do that UDI will make any mess independence creates much worse for Scotland.

Westminster will repeal it. It doesn't matter if the ref is binding or not. The Brexit one wasn't. If Scotland votes to go, then Westminster has pretty much lost it's authority anyway. Little sense in trying to keep a country where a majority doesn't want stay anymore in reality nor practice is there ?

What would be the point of that Tricky, if a majority of Scots voted to leave ?

If you believe that Scotland can block Brexit through the SC, which would be relying on law,

No, I don't believe that Scotland can block Brexit. No one does, it's a newspaper construct talking about Scotland having a veto. What the Scottish Govt was asking for was a vote in Holyrood, it would be up to Westminster to deal with the fallout from that. NI and Wales are asking for the same.

kabayiri

Brexit is bigger than Scotland; much bigger. It affects the 90% who don't live there for a start.

If Scotland going independent, or even having another indy ref, is the price of a successful Brexit, then so be it.

We are frequently told on here that Scotland will be independent anyway, one day, so what's the issue?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

kabayiri wrote: »

Brexit is bigger than Scotland; much bigger. It affects the 90% who don't live there for a start.

If Scotland going independent, or even having another indy ref, is the price of a successful Brexit, then so be it.

We are frequently told on here that Scotland will be independent anyway, one day, so what's the issue?

The issue is that those telling you that Scotland will be independent know deep down that independence is unlikely.

1979 Devolution Referendum: Turnout 63.6% ; electorate voting in favour of devolution 32.9%.

1997 Devolution Referendum: Turnout 60.2% ; electorate voting in favour of devolution 44.87%

2014 Independence Referendum: Turnout 84.5% ; electorate voting in favour of independence 37.8%

Figures are all freely available.

No doubt some will say "Ah but from those that voted" ......... well even from the 84.5% that DID vote in 2014 the result was still only 44%.
So to rely upon gaining independence, both a high turnout AND a substantially more desirous-of-independence electorate are needed.
Despite what some (on here especially) would have us believe, the real possibility of this is slim.

The obvious incompetence and dishonesty of the SNP is not changing the Scottish public's view further in favour either, as evidenced by recent polls.
The YouGov poll at the end of November for example shows that SNP support is falling and that more than half of all Scots do not even want another independence referendum.

In other words, those on here telling you that Scotland will be independent are - for now at least - as usual employing "smoke and mirrors" tactics.
But we are used to that by now.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Westminster will repeal it. It doesn't matter if the ref is binding or not. The Brexit one wasn't. If Scotland votes to go, then Westminster has pretty much lost it's authority anyway. Little sense in trying to keep a country where a majority doesn't want stay anymore in reality nor practice is there ?

What would be the point of that Tricky, if a majority of Scots voted to leave ?

No, I don't believe that Scotland can block Brexit. No one does, it's a newspaper construct talking about Scotland having a veto. What the Scottish Govt was asking for was a vote in Holyrood, it would be up to Westminster to deal with the fallout from that. NI and Wales are asking for the same.

Oh so now I'm correct that Westminster is required? Westminster has offered a 2nd referendum. The situation now appears to be take it or leave it.

I'm sure in court a unilateral referendum on independence would be shot down in flames, especially with an offer of a 2nd independence referendum on the table. Unionists, business, the UK parliament would all be against such a unilateral illegal process. After such a process the only option to be independent would be UDI, which could be further contested.

It's quite simple to render a unilateral referendum completely redundant, and that's to not recognise it and therefore not fight it should it come to pass that the SNP go it alone as you suggest. How can there be a referendum with only one campaigning side? Just refuse to entertain it because it's not lawful. End of. A precedent has already been set by the referendum in 2014.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

The issue is that those telling you that Scotland will be independent know deep down that independence is unlikely.

1979 Devolution Referendum: Turnout 63.6% ; electorate voting in favour of devolution 32.9%.

1997 Devolution Referendum: Turnout 60.2% ; electorate voting in favour of devolution 44.87%

2014 Independence Referendum: Turnout 84.5% ; electorate voting in favour of independence 37.8%

Figures are all freely available.

No doubt some will say "Ah but from those that voted" ......... well even from the 84.5% that DID vote in 2014 the result was still only 44%.
So to rely upon gaining independence, both a high turnout AND a substantially more desirous-of-independence electorate are needed.
Despite what some (on here especially) would have us believe, the real possibility of this is slim.

The obvious incompetence and dishonesty of the SNP is not changing the Scottish public's view further in favour either, as evidenced by recent polls.
The YouGov poll at the end of November for example shows that SNP support is falling and that more than half of all Scots do not even want another independence referendum.

In other words, those on here telling you that Scotland will be independent are - for now at least - as usual employing "smoke and mirrors" tactics.
But we are used to that by now.

If I were a Unionist that 45% figure staying stubbornly (give or take margin of error) solid for two full years would worry me greatly. With Brexit and what looks like a long period ahead of Conservative governments on top of that even more so. If the boot were on the other foot I'd certainly be a little jittery.

Glad you can be so upbeat in the face of it.

*The SNP/pro-indy's are about to turn their turrets wholesale onto the Tories. Stepping back a bit you can see the language changing from the EU in the last week or so. The SNP have a vid of Ruth Davidson during the Brexit ref entitled

'The SNP The Great Tory Brexit Sell-out: from principled post-referendum position to support for a hard #Brexit.'

plastered all over social media today too. There's still 500,000 Labour voters in Scotland who will agree with a lot of what's going to be said in the coming months.

* My opinion.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Oh so now I'm correct that Westminster is required? Westminster has offered a 2nd referendum. The situation now appears to be take it or leave it.

I'm sure in court a unilateral referendum on independence would be shot down in flames, especially with an offer of a 2nd independence referendum on the table. Unionists, business, the UK parliament would all be against such a unilateral illegal process. After such a process the only option to be independent would be UDI, which could be further contested.

It's quite simple to render a unilateral referendum completely redundant, and that's to not recognise it and therefore not fight it should it come to pass that the SNP go it alone as you suggest. How can there be a referendum with only one campaigning side? Just refuse to entertain it because it's not lawful. End of. A precedent has already been set by the referendum in 2014.

Tricky there's a difference between Westminster having to give permission for another referendum, and Westminster having to sign off on the result. No one has ever claimed that Westminster wouldn't have to vote ultimately to repeal the Act of Union.

It's the permission to hold a referendum in the first place where we disagree. You're treating the two things as one and the same. It wouldn't be unlawful to hold an advisory referendum. The UK allows those ( Brexit ). Timing will be of the Scottish Govt's choosing. A section 30 will be asked for same as the last time. We'll have to see how that plays out.