Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

LondonJohn said:
*sigh*

For Scotland to have something similar, it would have had to have been ratified and enacted in law by the UK national parliament. The UK national parliament had no appetite - on behalf of the people of the whole of the UK - to do such a thing in respect of Scotland. The UK national parliament - on behalf of the people of the whole of the UK - decided it was in the best interests of the people of the UK to enact such legislation in respect of NI.

The UK national parliament decided, in both instances. As is its legal and constitutional right and privilege.
Click to expand...

Why do you think its in the interests of the UK to have the election of a nationalist First Minister in NI be the trigger for a referendum, but not in Scotland?
 
Darat said:
But you don't seem to believe that people of the UK should have a right to self-determination, for some reason when it comes to the UK you want that right to be abridged.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. Self-determination doesn't mean you get to decide who is forced to stay with you.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Hang on..this is the exact opposite of what you have said earlier so either you've mispoken or I have completely misread.

Your earlier argument was that the people of England and Wales should have a vote in the Indyref. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes you are wrong because you are only considering one side of the matter.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
That by definition means that the vote could deny scotland independence even if Scotland voted 100%-0 to leave.

If I've misunderstood then what democratic deficit are you talking about?
Click to expand...

The route that was taken to the last Indyref meant the vast majority of people in the UK had no say in the future of their country. That to me is a democratic deficit.

You seem to imply that you believe in self determination so why do you deny that right to the people of the UK when it comes to the future of their country? Which is what the last Indyref did.

This is why I've been repeatedly saying we need to change the constitution of the UK (long long before this thread) to allow the people of the UK to have a say in major changes to their country. (LondonJohn has explained how that happens via representative democracy at the moment.)
 
Lothian said:
I know what it does. I provided a link to it. I have read it. I want a link to where you think it says or implies 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
Click to expand...


I've already decoded and explained it. This part of the note says that the UK national parliament will, as part of this amendment, no longer consider the matter of a Scottish independence referendum to be a "reserved matter" - which is to say that the UK national parliament will allow the Scottish regional parliament to enact legislation based on a Scottish independence referendum. And that in turn clearly implies that the UK national parliament will itself enact all legislation as is necessary (in this case, some form of "Independence of Scotland Act" if the Scottish parliament enacts independence legislation) to support the will of the Scottish parliament in this matter.

I'm not really sure why this argument is going on. As I also pointed out (a long time ago now), all such referendums are always held on the implicit understanding that their results will be enacted in law by the relevant legislatures. Otherwise it would render every single referendum, now and in the future, utterly worthless. And it's exactly why, while some are saying (correctly, in law) that even though the UK's EU referendum came in with a majority for "leave", the UK parliament could refuse to pass act repealing the original EU Act and effectively refusing to pull the UK out of the EU..... the reality is that all such referendums are backed by the implicit constitutional promise that legislation in line with the wishes of the referendum will be passed.
 
Strawberry said:
Why do you think its in the interests of the UK to have the election of a nationalist First Minister in NI be the trigger for a referendum, but not in Scotland?
Click to expand...


Ask the UK parliament. They represent my interests (and the interested of the collective population of the whole of the UK) in such matters. It is they who are entrusted with analysing the situation and making decisions and passing legislation which they believe is in the best interests of the UK population as a whole.

Why did the US Federal Legislature pass the Patriot Act? Have you read that thing?!
 
Darat said:
Yes you are wrong because you are only considering one side of the matter.



The route that was taken to the last Indyref meant the vast majority of people in the UK had no say in the future of their country. That to me is a democratic deficit.

You seem to imply that you believe in self determination so why do you deny that right to the people of the UK when it comes to the future of their country? Which is what the last Indyref did.

This is why I've been repeatedly saying we need to change the constitution of the UK (long long before this thread) to allow the people of the UK to have a say in major changes to their country. (LondonJohn has explained how that happens via representative democracy at the moment.)
Click to expand...

So you would deny the people of Scotland independence if they want it and England and Wales don't? You can't have it both ways. If not then you are going to have to explain what you actually mean.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ask the UK parliament. They represent my interests (and the interested of the collective population of the whole of the UK) in such matters. It is they who are entrusted with analysing the situation and making decisions and passing legislation which they believe is in the best interests of the UK population as a whole.

Why did the US Federal Legislature pass the Patriot Act? Have you read that thing?!
Click to expand...

I'm asking you what you think. Why, in your opinion, was it in your best interests for the Parliament to agree that a nationalist FM in NI should trigger a border poll, whereas in Scotland there apparently has to be a blue moon or something?
 
Strawberry said:
I'm asking you what you think. Why, in your opinion, was it in your best interests for the Parliament to agree that a nationalist FM in NI should trigger a border poll, whereas in Scotland there apparently has to be a blue moon or something?
Click to expand...


Ah here again we see a fundamental inability to understand representative democracy.

Whether or not what is done by the UK national parliament (in terms of legislation passed, treaties ratified, and so on) is in MY PERSONAL best interests is not just moot, it's entirely unimportant. What matters is whether, in the collective decision of parliament, it's in the best interests of the collective population of the whole of the UK.

I am getting slightly weary having to repeatedly explain very simple principles of government and society.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah here again we see a fundamental inability to understand representative democracy.

Whether or not what is done by the UK national parliament (in terms of legislation passed, treaties ratified, and so on) is in MY PERSONAL best interests is not just moot, it's entirely unimportant. What matters is whether, in the collective decision of parliament, it's in the best interests of the collective population of the whole of the UK.

I am getting slightly weary having to repeatedly explain very simple principles of government and society.
Click to expand...

I understand the principles of government and society, which is why I didn't ask you about those. I asked you what you think. Why do you think Parliament considered it in the best collective interests of the UK population to make the election of a nationalist FM in NI the trigger for a border poll, but not in Scotland?
 
But if the question is generalised, then I'd point out that obviously there are significant cultural, historical, religious, demographic, economic, geographic and political differences between the "Scotland/UK Question" and the "NI/UK" question. Perhaps one of the more immediately glaring differences, for example, is that there is a "pull" on NI leaving the UK, coming from RoI. There is no such "pull" from another nation state being a factor in the Scottish independence question. That alone makes a huge difference to the dynamic. And, as I say there are myriad other major differences as well.
 
Strawberry said:
I understand the principles of government and society, which is why I didn't ask you about those. I asked you what you think. Why do you think Parliament considered it in the best collective interests of the UK population to make the election of a nationalist FM in NI the trigger for a border poll, but not in Scotland?
Click to expand...


No. You asked why it was in "my best interests". Which, I'm afraid, explicitly showed that you didn't understand those principles properly at all.

I'd also point out that it's neither my job nor my responsibility to weigh up every issue pertaining to legislation and treaties, to establish why it might or might not be in the best interests of the UK as a collective populus. That's why it's the job of the MPs whom I and others choose to represent us. I might as well ask you why a particular piece of fishing boundaries legislation enacted by your parliament was "in your best interests".
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I've already decoded and explained it. This part of the note says that the UK national parliament will, as part of this amendment, no longer consider the matter of a Scottish independence referendum to be a "reserved matter" - which is to say that the UK national parliament will allow the Scottish regional parliament to enact legislation based on a Scottish independence referendum. And that in turn clearly implies that the UK national parliament will itself enact all legislation as is necessary (in this case, some form of "Independence of Scotland Act" if the Scottish parliament enacts independence legislation) to support the will of the Scottish parliament in this matter.
Click to expand...
OK I assume your refusal to provide a link mean we are looking at the same thing. You are reading far to much into the order. The law doesn't work the way you think. It says what it says and it says nothing about the post referendum process.

I think I need you have some good points in this thread, there is no need to mske stuff up
 
LondonJohn said:
Well this interesting question reflects in a fascinating (but perhaps unexpected) way on the Scottish independence issue, and whether or not UK citizens (represented by the UK parliament) should have a say.

And the question is just that posed above: who SHOULD be allowed to vote in a border poll on NI? But for a moment, I'm not talking about the citizens of the UK. Let's instead look at the citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Should those citizens have a say on whether or not NI "joins up" with their country? If so, why? If not, why not?

This should be interesting, and not a little entertaining :)
Click to expand...
Its very simple. Citizens of NI should have a say in what they do, e.g. join the UK. Or if they were in the U.K., to have a say in deciding to leave it.

But people who are NOT residents of NI do not have a say in what the residents of NI decide to do, if they vote to leave the Union. In the case of a Border Poll in Ireland, the border is both in NI and RoI, as it is a common border, so both groups should vote. RoI residents are entitled to vote on whether NI should join the RoI.

But English, Scots and Welsh people have no right to vote whether NI leaves the UK. If I decide to join a club, existing members are entitled to vote on whether or not to accept my application; but if I decide to leave the club, they have no right to vote to keep me as a member against my will. They will withdraw from me the rights and privileges of membership; and that is the limit of the sanctions available to them. The UK may soon experience such treatment at the hands of the EU.

This principle was tested in Ireland in 1918. In the general election of that year the nationalists won an overwhelming victory. Once elected, their MPs refrained from taking up their seats in Westminster, and assembled in Dublin instead, as Dáil Éireann, the parliament of an independent Ireland. The response of the UK government was to declare the Dail an illegal assembly and to arrest its members. An armed uprising soon followed. Was that a sensible policy for the UK government to apply? I would say no. Is it possible that such foolishness would be repeated by Westminster in the event of a similar expression of Scottish wishes? I think not. The Empire is dead. It has ceased to be.
 
LondonJohn said:
But if the question is generalised, then I'd point out that obviously there are significant cultural, historical, religious, demographic, economic, geographic and political differences between the "Scotland/UK Question" and the "NI/UK" question. Perhaps one of the more immediately glaring differences, for example, is that there is a "pull" on NI leaving the UK, coming from RoI. There is no such "pull" from another nation state being a factor in the Scottish independence question. That alone makes a huge difference to the dynamic. And, as I say there are myriad other major differences as well.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll accept that, it is true that another sovereign government negotiating along side Irish nationalists in NI is bound to get a better deal than just the NI contingent on its own. So your answer is partly true.

But I think we both know that there's another major difference between Scottish and Irish nationalism which is instrumental here - Ireland's history is a dark and violent one, and its produced a strand of nationalism that views the principle of self determination as a higher moral imperative than everything else, including murder.

Scotland hasn't, the Scottish nationalists have remained peaceful for over a hundred years. They don't get half enough credit for it either, they just get demonised and walked all over and told they're not a country.
 
Strawberry said:
Okay. I'll accept that, it is true that another sovereign government negotiating along side Irish nationalists in NI is bound to get a better deal than just the NI contingent on its own. So your answer is partly true.

But I think we both know that there's another major difference between Scottish and Irish nationalism which is instrumental here - Ireland's history is a dark and violent one, and its produced a strand of nationalism that views the principle of self determination as a higher moral imperative than everything else, including murder.

Scotland hasn't, the Scottish nationalists have remained peaceful for over a hundred years. They don't get half enough credit for it either, they just get demonised and walked all over and told they're not a country.
Click to expand...

Then branded bigots for having the temerity to question that narrative. It's pretty par for the course. 2nd class citizens in your own country.
 
Craig B said:
Its very simple. Citizens of NI should have a say in what they do, e.g. join the UK. Or if they were in the U.K., to have a say in deciding to leave it.

But people who are NOT residents of NI do not have a say in what the residents of NI decide to do, if they vote to leave the Union. In the case of a Border Poll in Ireland, the border is both in NI and RoI, as it is a common border, so both groups should vote. RoI residents are entitled to vote on whether NI should join the RoI.

But English, Scots and Welsh people have no right to vote whether NI leaves the UK. If I decide to join a club, existing members are entitled to vote on whether or not to accept my application; but if I decide to leave the club, they have no right to vote to keep me as a member against my will. They will withdraw from me the rights and privileges of membership; and that is the limit of the sanctions available to them. The UK may soon experience such treatment at the hands of the EU.

This principle was tested in Ireland in 1918. In the general election of that year the nationalists won an overwhelming victory. Once elected, their MPs refrained from taking up their seats in Westminster, and assembled in Dublin instead, as Dáil Éireann, the parliament of an independent Ireland. The response of the UK government was to declare the Dail an illegal assembly and to arrest its members. An armed uprising soon followed. Was that a sensible policy for the UK government to apply? I would say no. Is it possible that such foolishness would be repeated by Westminster in the event of a similar expression of Scottish wishes? I think not. The Empire is dead. It has ceased to be.
Click to expand...


Your "club" analogy is dreadfully wrong and inappropriate here (although, ironically, it's a fairly good analogy for the EU).

A far more apposite and appropriate analogy for regions wanting to separate from a sovereign state is the one I've used before: a company, where one particular operating unit of the business wishes to demerge from the company. Even people of low intellect can understand that in such a scenario, the board of the company and its shareholders hold the absolute and inalienable right to be the ultimate arbiters on whether that constituent operating unit should be allowed to demerge from the company. Just as - again, whether you like it or not, or whether you wish it were different or not - a sovereign national parliament holds the absolute and inalienable right to determine whether any particular region of that country should be allowed to separate and become independent*.


* Other than when it is decided in international law that the seceding region had the right to unilaterally declare independence without the assent of the parent nation - but that would be in circumstances where it's clear that certain basic democratic rights (representation, association, freedom of movement, freedom of information/press, freedom against violence etc) are being violated by the parent state in respect of the region seeking to secede.
 
Strawberry said:
Okay. I'll accept that, it is true that another sovereign government negotiating along side Irish nationalists in NI is bound to get a better deal than just the NI contingent on its own. So your answer is partly true.

But I think we both know that there's another major difference between Scottish and Irish nationalism which is instrumental here - Ireland's history is a dark and violent one, and its produced a strand of nationalism that views the principle of self determination as a higher moral imperative than everything else, including murder.

Scotland hasn't, the Scottish nationalists have remained peaceful for over a hundred years. They don't get half enough credit for it either, they just get demonised and walked all over and told they're not a country.
Click to expand...


Oh please. Spare us all this "they get demonised and walked over" crap. Utter nonsense. And they're told they're not a country because...... they're not a country. Are we supposed to feel similar faux-outrage for the people of Merseyside if they too are told they're not a country? Or the people of England, which is also not a country?

It's this mawkish, politicised, "oh downtrodden us" claptrap which so often clouds these sorts of nationalist arguments. It's quite something.
 
LondonJohn said:
Your "club" analogy is dreadfully wrong and inappropriate here (although, ironically, it's a fairly good analogy for the EU).

A far more apposite and appropriate analogy for regions wanting to separate from a sovereign state
Click to expand...

Well go to another thread and discuss regions wanting to separate from a sovereign state then. This one is about a nation wanting to separate from a union.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh please. Spare us all this "they get demonised and walked over" crap. Utter nonsense. And they're told they're not a country because...... they're not a country. Are we supposed to feel similar faux-outrage for the people of Merseyside if they too are told they're not a country? Or the people of England, which is also not a country?

It's this mawkish, politicised, "oh downtrodden us" claptrap which so often clouds these sorts of nationalist arguments. It's quite something.
Click to expand...

Obtuse, naive, anglocentric, that's what drips from your posts. I really can't take you seriously on the subject of anything to do with Scotland at all.

As for anyone who doubts that Scottish nationalists get demonised in the UK media, are you blind? Alex Salmond was dangled in front of the English as a threat at the last general election by the Tory press, as in "if you vote Labour, they'll form an alliance with this monster." I've never even seen Gerry Adams get portrayed as so dangerous. It seems to have worked too, the Tories won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom