Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Darat]

And I have no no deal to work on, my country like yours is the UK. If I want be romantic I can talk about my Welsh ancestry, or my Scottish ancestry but I'm a pretty unromantic person so I leave romanticism to others and deal with reality which is you and I live in the same country, the UK.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And you have now twice been given the opportunity to decided to leave. As NS said the last one was a once in a generation chance. Try again in 20 years perhaps?

Perhaps. Again, it's not up to Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond or you or me to determine any of this. It's the Scottish people who get to decide. They can stop voting SNP anytime they choose to.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And I have no no deal to work on, my country like yours is the UK. If I want be romantic I can talk about my Welsh ancestry, or my Scottish ancestry but I'm a pretty unromantic person so I leave romanticism to others and deal with reality which is you and I live in the same country, the UK.

No. My country is not the UK. Many others feel the same way from every nation that makes up the Union. That's merely a designation on my passport.

As for the reality of the situation. The reality is that Scotland has a choice to leave the Union whenever it wants to. And the reality is it would probably be better for everyone if that happend

 

[LondonJohn]

Your suspicions are only too well founded. If the UK is a PLC I want to dispose of my shares. I will no longer be a shareholder, and won't receive any dividends when these are paid. I will no longer have a right to vote in the election of the executive board.

I am aware that I will, when I dispose of my shares, lose these rights and privileges, but nonetheless I want to cease to be a shareholder. You are telling me I need the consent of the other shareholders?

Try again, and read my post again. This is about an operational business unit of UK plc wishing to demerge from the business. The fact that this business unit contains employees and shareholders in UK plc is only peripheral to the demerger being requested. And every single shareholder in UK plc (including, of course, the shareholders who wish the operational business unit to be demerged) has a right to determine the constitution of UK plc - including, explicitly, whether or not operational business units can or cannot demerge from UK plc.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I understand it the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England are reserved matters under para 1(b) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That means that the devolved parliament in Scotland does not have the power to break up the union just as it does not have the power to decide that the Queen would no longer be the head of state.

The referendum was allowed by The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5)e Order 2013 but by my reading that simply allowed a referendum. The actual splitting of the union would have required another bill to be agreed by the UK parliament.

Happy to be corrected with a link to the law allowing Scotland to unilaterally leave with no say in matters by the UK parliament.

Entirely correct. Maybe they'll believe it coming from you - it appears that hostility is blinding them to hearing it from me


ETA: the wording of the amendment to the Scotland Act which authorised the referendum also made it clear that if the majority will in Scotland was for independence, then the notional resultant "Independence of Scotland Act" would be waved through the UK parliament without opposition - as indeed was pretty much a constitutional and legal prerequisite for granting a referendum in the first place (it would have been outrageous and wholly improper for the UK parliament to have granted an independence referendum, only to in effect say "but if you vote for independence in that referendum, we might still decide not to enact legislation granting you that independence")

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Try again, and read my post again. This is about an operational business unit of UK plc

No its about a country declaring independence. Analogies can be useful but dont mistake the map for the territory. Especially if you have to force one interpretation of the analogy to make it work.

The union was not a business merger.

Every single principle of self determination outlines that ultimately a people decide their own fate and nobody can hold them against their will.

 

[LondonJohn]

And I have no no deal to work on, my country like yours is the UK. If I want be romantic I can talk about my Welsh ancestry, or my Scottish ancestry but I'm a pretty unromantic person so I leave romanticism to others and deal with reality which is you and I live in the same country, the UK.

I believe your words of logic and reason (and mine) are falling on long-deaf ears - deafened by strange and bitterly fervent notions of "reclaiming a nation" and romanticised hatred of "perfidious Albion". It's very interesting to observe though, isn't it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Entirely correct. Maybe they'll believe it coming from you - it appears that hostility is blinding them to hearing it from me


ETA: the wording of the amendment to the Scotland Act which authorised the referendum also made it clear that if the majority will in Scotland was for independence, then the notional resultant "Independence of Scotland Act" would be waved through the UK parliament without opposition - as indeed was pretty much a constitutional and legal prerequisite for granting a referendum in the first place (it would have been outrageous and wholly improper for the UK parliament to have granted an independence referendum, only to in effect say "but if you vote for independence in that referendum, we might still decide not to enact legislation granting you that independence")

Perhaps that what lothian is saying is correct will allow us to accept it rather than your overstated and overreaching conclusions?

Incidentally can you explain how constitutionally something can be made clear it will be waved through? Surely parliament could do what it wanted at the time?

 

[Craig B]

Are the SNP threatening violent uprisings if they don't get their way?

To the contrary; I can't even imagine the UK government setting aside the wishes of the Scottish people on the pretext of your "region" thesis. That's basically why I think your argument is entirely unrealistic and artificial.

 

[Lothian]

ETA: the wording of the amendment to the Scotland Act which authorised the referendum also made it clear that if the majority will in Scotland was for independence, then the notional resultant "Independence of Scotland Act" would be waved through the UK parliament without opposition - as indeed was pretty much a constitutional and legal prerequisite for granting a referendum in the first place (it would have been outrageous and wholly improper for the UK parliament to have granted an independence referendum, only to in effect say "but if you vote for independence in that referendum, we might still decide not to enact legislation granting you that independence")

I didn't see that in the act or the order or the explanatory note. Can you provide a link?

 

[Craig B]

Of course you don't, just give your shares up.

Or to take it out of the analogy no one is forcing you to keep your UK citizenship, just find a country that is willing to accept you as a new citizen/shareholder.

I will keep my UK citizenship, until there is a Scottish citizenship; but I think I have found another country such as you describe, which will remain a member of the EU; and I do fulfil the qualification for receiving a passport from it.

 

[Lothian]

However, ultimately the future of Scotland lies with the people of Scotland and should the majority express a democratic will to end the Union it will be impossible to prevent that. This has been universally acknowledged by the UK Government for as long as it's even been a question.

I presume you are now talking about an ISIS style declaration of an independent state of Scotland as opposed to an independent Scotland recognised by the rest of the world. The latter will only be achieved though legal means and without the UK parliament changing the law, that will not happen irrespective of the wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I believe your words of logic and reason (and mine) are falling on long-deaf ears - deafened by strange and bitterly fervent notions of "reclaiming a nation" and romanticised hatred of "perfidious Albion". It's very interesting to observe though, isn't it?

The only hatred of a nation expressed has been from yourself. To the point of denying its existence as a nation. Thats pretty off the scale.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I presume you are now talking about an ISIS style declaration of an independent state of Scotland as opposed to an independent Scotland recognised by the rest of the world. The latter will only be achieved though legal means and without the UK parliament changing the law, that will not happen irrespective of the wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland.

No thats not what I am talking about.

Im talking about the hundred and one other legal means whuch every internet lawyer in scotland has weighed in on the validity of. A long legal battle scrutinising every minutae of the law, the constution and history. Until sense prevails.

As a rather silly example of how it could happen the queen could simply make it so.

But this in all in the scenario where May goes beyond even Thatcher in denying Scotland selfdetermination and I dont think even shes that mental.

 

[LondonJohn]

The only hatred of a nation expressed has been from yourself. To the point of denying its existence as a nation. Thats pretty off the scale.

Scotland is not a nation. It might be a "nation" in a romanticised version of the truth. But in cold, hard, legal truth, it is not a nation. That's a fact. It's not "hatred" of Scotland to point out that it is not a nation or a country, any more than it is "hatred" of England to point out that England is not a nation or a country. How ludicrously absurd. And telling.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Scotland is not a nation. It might be a "nation" in a romanticised version of the truth. But in cold, hard, legal truth, it is not a nation. That's a fact. It's not "hatred" of Scotland to point out that it is not a nation or a country, any more than it is "hatred" of England to point out that England is not a nation or a country. How ludicrously absurd. And telling.

That you keep insisting it isnt is both ludicrous and telling of your hatred. You have been shown that the UK government acknowledges Scotland as a nation. What higher authority are you referencing for your assertion?

 

[Lothian]

No thats not what I am talking about.

Im talking about the hundred and one other legal means whuch every internet lawyer in scotland has weighed in on the validity of. A long legal battle scrutinising every minutae of the law, the constution and history. Until sense prevails.

As a rather silly example of how it could happen the queen could simply make it so.

But this in all in the scenario where May goes beyond even Thatcher in denying Scotland selfdetermination and I dont think even shes that mental.

...but that is not jiw things work. If it was there would now be death penalty in the UK. Still I wouldn't want to spoil the delusions of a 1000 keyboard warriors.

 

[LondonJohn]

I didn't see that in the act or the order or the explanatory note. Can you provide a link?

It's implied in the explanatory note. That note is basically saying that the UK parliament will effectively hand back control of Scottish independence to the Scottish regional parliament pending the referendum, provided the conditions set out in the amendment are met. And this is therefore implicitly saying that the UK parliament will assent to the will of the Scottish regional parliament in respect of Scottish independence.

 

[LondonJohn]

That you keep insisting it isnt is both ludicrous and telling of your hatred. You have been shown that the UK government acknowledges Scotland as a nation. What higher authority are you referencing for your assertion?

Um. International law, perhaps? (Not my hatred, bruh....)

 

[Craig B]

Scotland is not a nation. It might be a "nation" in a romanticised version of the truth. But in cold, hard, legal truth, it is not a nation. That's a fact. It's not "hatred" of Scotland to point out that it is not a nation or a country, any more than it is "hatred" of England to point out that England is not a nation or a country. How ludicrously absurd. And telling.

What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a ... um, region​