Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the romanticism with the idea that you can map the modern UK onto the world of 300 years ago. Any country that would arise from "Scottish independence" is for all practical means a new country - it is not a continuation of the Scotland of 300+ years ago.
 
Lothian said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Scotland did get exasperated enough to declare UDI, the UK government would end up having to accept it anyway. What else could they do?
 
Darat said:
This is the romanticism with the idea that you can map the modern UK onto the world of 300 years ago. Any country that would arise from "Scottish independence" is for all practical means a new country - it is not a continuation of the Scotland of 300+ years ago.
Click to expand...

No, its just a new sovereign nation, Scotland has always been a country.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am still not seeing that in my version. Do you have a link where
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

I am not seeing 'Independence of Scotland act' or anything like what you are seeing.
 
Last edited:
What should happen and should have happened decades ago is for us to sort out the constitution of the UK to incorporate actual legal means by which areas of the UK could leave the UK and how referendums bind the government.

The past Scottish only referendums were a terrible democratic deficit. It is wrong that I have no say in the future of my country. We should have a constitution that allows referendums in very limited cases and only when it is something that has major effects to the entire country (so things like the EU leave or stay or the last Scottish referendums) but everyone who will be affected should be able to participate in the decision.

Referendums should not be used by politicians for short term political advantage - as Cameron used them.
 
Darat said:
What should happen and should have happened decades ago is for us to sort out the constitution of the UK to incorporate actual legal means by which areas of the UK could leave the UK and how referendums bind the government.

The past Scottish only referendums were a terrible democratic deficit. It is wrong that I have no say in the future of my country. We should have a constitution that allows referendums in very limited cases and only when it is something that has major effects to the entire country (so things like the EU leave or stay or the last Scottish referendums) but everyone who will be affected should be able to participate in the decision.

Referendums should not be used by politicians for short term political advantage - as Cameron used them.
Click to expand...

Would that include a border poll in Northern Ireland? Because that would effect everyone in the UK, and everyone in the Republic of Ireland, so following your logic, the two countries would have to vote in it.
 
All this is very jolly but I have to say I don't think there is a cat in hells chance of another Indey ref in the next 10 or 20 years.
 
Strawberry said:
Would that include a border poll in Northern Ireland? Because that would effect everyone in the UK, and everyone in the Republic of Ireland, so following your logic, the two countries would have to vote in it.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked the Republic of Ireland wasn't part of the UK... They can do whatever they like.
 
Darat said:
Last time I checked the Republic of Ireland wasn't part of the UK... They can do whatever they like.
Click to expand...

Yes, but do you think the entire UK should vote on a united Ireland? And if so, why not invite the Republic to join in, since they would be effected too?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDHfQ7RIebA

You don’t get a referendum for free, you have to earn it. So if the Greens and the SNP – and the SSP or any of the other parties who’ve declared an interest in independence – get over the line and can make a coalition, make a majority, get the votes in the Parliament, then they’ll vote through a referendum, and that’s what democracy’s all about… it’s perfectly simple
Click to expand...

Just sayin'.
 
Giz said:
"Always"?

Scotland was established in 843 AD. Then disestablished in 1707 AD.
Click to expand...

I think for the purposes of this discussion "since 843" can be taken as always. And Scotland was disestablished as a sovereign nation in 1707, it never ceased to be a country.
 
Strawberry said:
No, its just a new sovereign nation, Scotland has always been a country.
Click to expand...

Actually the Scottish Parliament was declared to be exactly that at the first opening session of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and the speech talked about it being a continuation of a Parliament set down in controversy 300 years go and restarted.
"But today, we pause and reflect. It is a rare privilege in an old nation to open a new Parliament. Today is and must be a celebration of the principles, the traditions, the democratic imperative which has brought us to this point and will sustain us in the future."
This speech was not by the SNP but by Donald Dewar of the Labour Party who of course also held a majority in the Westminster parliament and the opening of the Parliament is sealed with the royal seal at the start of every legislative year, just as it is in Westminster but not in London or Manchester. This role of the Queen in the Parliament and assemblies of each of the 4 nations is a key legal constitutional point.
 
Last edited:
Strawberry said:
Yes, but do you think the entire UK should vote on a united Ireland? And if so, why not invite the Republic to join in, since they would be effected too?
Click to expand...

Wasn't that part of what caused the rebellion in the first place? :) To quote one your great countrymen Padraig Pearce as I think it sums up how many Scots feel and why we have such affinity with the Irish.

Rulers and Defenders of Realms had need to be wary it they would guard against such processes. Life springs from death, and from the graves of patriot men and women spring live nations. The defenders of this realm have worked well in secret and in the open. They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us, and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything. They think that they have provided against everything; but the fools, the fools, the fools!."*
 
Last edited:
MCel58 said:
Wasn't that part of what caused the rebellion in the first place? :)
Click to expand...

Yes, and I notice the thread has gone very quiet since I asked that question. Probably because Darat and LondonJohn are intelligent enough to predict the follow up question - what do you think would happen if the Irish voted for unity and the UK voted to keep Ireland partitioned against their will? And who do you think international law would side with then?
 
Strawberry said:
Yes, but do you think the entire UK should vote on a united Ireland? And if so, why not invite the Republic to join in, since they would be effected too?
Click to expand...

Sorry I just can't follow your logic - my comments are about the UK and the UK constitution?
 
Darat said:
Sorry I just can't follow your logic - my comments are about the UK and the UK constitution?
Click to expand...

Northern Ireland is part of the UK. So in this new constitution you're designing with rules about referendums, what would be the rule about a border poll in Northern Ireland? Who would get to vote in it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom