Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Planigale]

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/the-cow-in-the-caravan/

I read his views regularly in the Nationalist. They are as well argued here as ever (Sarcastic tone).

He says that the role of Scotland in the EU is different because it is subject to a treaty. Yet the relationship between Scotland and England is defined by a treaty. The terms of the treaty may differ, but it is not qualitative different. A good example is the continuation of a separate scottish legal system. The EU is committed to an ever closer union (something with which I agree), Scotland will not have a veto over every EU policy as the author of this article implies (if Scotland was independent and an EUmember, its economic policies, immigration policies, laws, etc. will be subject to the EU, Scotland will need to commit to joining the Euro, the exact terms of membership of an independent Scotland within the EU are of course unknown, the direction of travel of the EU is known). Scotland may well find itself with less independence and less influence in the EU than in the UK with current opt outs. There is no doubt the final intent of the EU is that Scotland will NOT be independent.

 

[Craig B]

He says that the role of Scotland in the EU is different because it is subject to a treaty. Yet the relationship between Scotland and England is defined by a treaty. The terms of the treaty may differ, but it is not qualitative different.

This "treaty" has the constitutional form of an Act of the U.K. Parliament. It is not in reality a treaty, but an Act, which can be amended at the will of a parliament in which Scotland has always had only a small proportion of members. This has in fact happened on several occasions.

The overwhelmingly dominant doctrine in British constitutional interpretation is that formulated by A.V. Dicey (1835-1922). Dicey held the view that parliament was supreme and unconfined, and that there was no fundamental law at the foundation of the British constitution. In other words, the British parliament is the supreme decision-making body in the realm, and nothing constrains it, not even the Union agreement itself. Indeed, Dicey was quite specific about the status of the Union, which was just an ordinary statute, as far as he was concerned, and enjoyed no special immunity from repeal and amendment by subsequent parliaments. The Act of Union had exactly the same status as the most humdrum piece of legislation: 'neither the Act of Union with Scotland, nor the Dentists Act, 1878 has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law.' Diceyan orthodoxy long reigned supreme and unchallenged, as much in Scotland as south of the border.​

That is why at school we were always taught to refer to this legislative instrument as the Act of Union; as if the Westminster parliament had the ability to bring itself into existence by one of its own acts, a power not even attributed to gods in most religious traditions.

 

[Planigale]

This "treaty" has the constitutional form of an Act of the U.K. Parliament. It is not in reality a treaty, but an Act, which can be amended at the will of a parliament in which Scotland has always had only a small proportion of members. This has in fact happened on several occasions.

The overwhelmingly dominant doctrine in British constitutional interpretation is that formulated by A.V. Dicey (1835-1922). Dicey held the view that parliament was supreme and unconfined, and that there was no fundamental law at the foundation of the British constitution. In other words, the British parliament is the supreme decision-making body in the realm, and nothing constrains it, not even the Union agreement itself. Indeed, Dicey was quite specific about the status of the Union, which was just an ordinary statute, as far as he was concerned, and enjoyed no special immunity from repeal and amendment by subsequent parliaments. The Act of Union had exactly the same status as the most humdrum piece of legislation: 'neither the Act of Union with Scotland, nor the Dentists Act, 1878 has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law.' Diceyan orthodoxy long reigned supreme and unchallenged, as much in Scotland as south of the border.​

That is why at school we were always taught to refer to this legislative instrument as the Act of Union; as if the Westminster parliament had the ability to bring itself into existence by one of its own acts, a power not even attributed to gods in most religious traditions.

An Act of the Scottish Parliament remember!

 

[Planigale]

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/the-cow-in-the-caravan/

To be fair I really dislike the author for his virtually admitted voter fraud.

Background. His partner was diagnosed with dementia in 2012, requiring the author to become a full time carer, the partner died of dementia before the referendum but had 'cast' a postal vote. Now I am sure that the author is certain he knew what way his partner would have voted. But there is no way that someone with advanced dementia can cast a free vote within weeks of death from dementia. However certain you are of someone else intentions casting a vote for someone else is a crime. That someone who clearly was prepared to commit voter fraud is regarded as a reputable spokesperson for independence I find sad.

 

[Craig B]

An Act of the Scottish Parliament remember!

That simply required the Scottish Parliament to eliminate itself by one of its own acts, which is regrettably easy, but was not much to the popular taste.

When we were coming to the vote, it was whispered to us that there was rable at the doors & were pressing to be in & had knocked down some of the Guards... we found the Parliament Close full of the mob. The Commissioner & severals with him went to the Abbay & the Duke of Hamilton went to the Duke of Athole’s which is in the Land Market. The wholle mob & rable followed him. He was in his Chair with the Glasses down and was huzza’d all the way ... they went back to the Town in ane uproar & went streight to Sir Patrick Johnston’s house, who you know had been Provost last year & one of our Treaters. They assaulted his house, broke his windows & did they could to beat open his door giving him names & calling out that they would massacre him for being a betrayer & seller of his country.​

http://www.scottisharchivesforschools.org/union1707/chapter5.asp

 

[Planigale]

That simply required the Scottish Parliament to eliminate itself by one of its own acts, which is regrettably easy, but was not much to the popular taste.

When we were coming to the vote, it was whispered to us that there was rable at the doors & were pressing to be in & had knocked down some of the Guards... we found the Parliament Close full of the mob. The Commissioner & severals with him went to the Abbay & the Duke of Hamilton went to the Duke of Athole’s which is in the Land Market. The wholle mob & rable followed him. He was in his Chair with the Glasses down and was huzza’d all the way ... they went back to the Town in ane uproar & went streight to Sir Patrick Johnston’s house, who you know had been Provost last year & one of our Treaters. They assaulted his house, broke his windows & did they could to beat open his door giving him names & calling out that they would massacre him for being a betrayer & seller of his country.​

http://www.scottisharchivesforschools.org/union1707/chapter5.asp

So good to know that as representatives of the Scots people they acted in the best interests of the people and were not cowed by a minority who resorted to violence. I am sure you are not advocating mob rule!

 

[Craig B]

So good to know that as representatives of the Scots people they acted in the best interests of the people and were not cowed by a minority who resorted to violence. I am sure you are not advocating mob rule!

Far From it. I am advocating that Scotland be governed by the elected representatives of the Scottish people. In 1707, about one tenth of one percent of the Scottish people had the vote, so mobs were the only way of influencing public policy. But now we have universal suffrage. What we don't have is sovereignty. May we be courageous enough to claim it soon!

 

[Planigale]

Far From it. I am advocating that Scotland be governed by the elected representatives of the Scottish people. In 1707, about one tenth of one percent of the Scottish people had the vote, so mobs were the only way of influencing public policy. But now we have universal suffrage. What we don't have is sovereignty. May we be courageous enough to claim it soon!

Thanks. I think what you mean is that Scotland should solely be governed by the elected representatives of the Scottish people, who should have absolute sovereignty. This will not be the case if Scotland is part of the EU. So do I assume you advocate for an independent Scotland out of the EU?

One could argue that the sovereign people of Scotland voted to exercise their sovereignty through a sovereign UK.

I am not ethnic British and I really find it hard to understand how being north of some arbitrary line makes one group of people somehow different from another (which it probably does not looking at the voting preferences for the borders). I apologise for what probably seems obvious to you, but as a current resident of Orkney (not the most nationalist minded area) I do find this a difficult concept.

 

[Strawberry]

Thanks. I think what you mean is that Scotland should solely be governed by the elected representatives of the Scottish people, who should have absolute sovereignty. This will not be the case if Scotland is part of the EU. So do I assume you advocate for an independent Scotland out of the EU?

One could argue that the sovereign people of Scotland voted to exercise their sovereignty through a sovereign UK.

I am not ethnic British and I really find it hard to understand how being north of some arbitrary line makes one group of people somehow different from another (which it probably does not looking at the voting preferences for the borders). I apologise for what probably seems obvious to you, but as a current resident of Orkney (not the most nationalist minded area) I do find this a difficult concept.

Do you find it difficult to understand why I, as a resident of County Fermanagh, want to be part of Ireland and not part of the UK?

 

[Craig B]

Thanks. I think what you mean is that Scotland should solely be governed by the elected representatives of the Scottish people, who should have absolute sovereignty. This will not be the case if Scotland is part of the EU. So do I assume you advocate for an independent Scotland out of the EU?

One could argue that the sovereign people of Scotland voted to exercise their sovereignty through a sovereign UK.

I am not ethnic British and I really find it hard to understand how being north of some arbitrary line makes one group of people somehow different from another (which it probably does not looking at the voting preferences for the borders). I apologise for what probably seems obvious to you, but as a current resident of Orkney (not the most nationalist minded area) I do find this a difficult concept.

I'd be perfectly content if Scotland was as sovereign as France or Germany, EU members. "Arbitrary" lines have been delineating the boundaries of countries, and alliances of countries, for many centuries. If you have a problem with that, it's probably worth a discussion of that general principle in a specific thread, because it's not a particularly Scottish, or UK, Or EU phenomenon.

 

[Planigale]

Do you find it difficult to understand why I, as a resident of County Fermanagh, want to be part of Ireland and not part of the UK?

No

 

[Planigale]

I'd be perfectly content if Scotland was as sovereign as France or Germany, EU members. "Arbitrary" lines have been delineating the boundaries of countries, and alliances of countries, for many centuries. If you have a problem with that, it's probably worth a discussion of that general principle in a specific thread, because it's not a particularly Scottish, or UK, Or EU phenomenon.

Thank you.

Given that the object of the EU is ever closer union, i.e, progressive loss of sovereignty is this acceptable to you? That is that the increase in sovereignty is temporary?

 

[Craig B]

Thank you.

Given that the object of the EU is ever closer union, i.e, progressive loss of sovereignty is this acceptable to you? That is that the increase in sovereignty is temporary?

I think this is exaggerated as a prospect, but I will say that if the EU abolishes parliaments and governs all EU member countries direct from Brussels as provinces within a single state, I would have a problem with that. How likely is it?

 

[Planigale]

Do you find it difficult to understand why I, as a resident of County Fermanagh, want to be part of Ireland and not part of the UK?

To be clear, I can see a good argument for a the Island of Ireland to be a logical level of government just as I can see for the island of Great Britain. Historically given the relative differences between the UK and Ireland (the dominance of the catholic church the lack of an NHS, anti protestant prejudice), I can understand the reluctance of those in NI to be stop being part of the UK. I think as the social / political structure of Ireland has advanced the reluctance will reduce. I would not force the people of Ireland to unite against their will, but I think it is the sensible thing. I also broadly support the EU and ever closer union.

 

[Planigale]

I think this is exaggerated as a prospect, but I will say that if the EU abolishes parliaments and governs all EU member countries direct from Brussels as provinces within a single state, I would have a problem with that. How likely is it?

Not in my life time I guess, but next century? A single currency, common fiscal policy, an EU parliament, a common citizenship, common embassies, a common foreign policy, a common defence policy, removal of national vetoes, all currently in progress. It is hard to define when a nation state becomes a province. Texas has its own airforce, is it an independent nation? Texas calls itself a nation.

ETA

Scotland has a parliament so clearly Scotland could still have a parliament but not reach a level of independence acceptable to you.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What's the strawman? Do you mean that when you said



and



You actually wanted to stress that the English are no less tolerant of foreigners than the Scottish?

Because if so, that's a strange way of saying it, almost like you meant the opposite.

The point wasn't difficult and I shudder to think that you genuinely don't understand it.

When it was suggested that there was no difference between wanting to leave the eu and wanting to leave the uk it was pointed out that the motivations and policies favoured by the two movements are fundamentally and drastically different.

No claim was made that Scotland was populated by Angels or saints. I'm well aware of the shortcomings of Scottish people individually and in groups as with any population of that size.

Anyone trying to equate the SNP to UKIP is wilfully ignorant or simply a bigot. Racist moronic little englander might be a term suited to such an individual in fact.

 

[Strawberry]

To be clear, I can see a good argument for a the Island of Ireland to be a logical level of government just as I can see for the island of Great Britain. Historically given the relative differences between the UK and Ireland (the dominance of the catholic church the lack of an NHS, anti protestant prejudice), I can understand the reluctance of those in NI to be stop being part of the UK. I think as the social / political structure of Ireland has advanced the reluctance will reduce. I would not force the people of Ireland to unite against their will, but I think it is the sensible thing. I also broadly support the EU and ever closer union.

There's one glaring omission from your list of things that make NI unionists reluctant to join the Republic - anti-Irish, anti-Catholic prejudice on their part. Its also ironic that you mention the NHS - when Attlee first brought that in he had to threaten the Unionists in NI with direct rule to get them to accept the NHS because those enlightened Protestant souls were afraid free health care would make the Catholics have even more children.

 

[Craig B]

There's one glaring omission from your list of things that make NI unionists reluctant to join the Republic - anti-Irish, anti-Catholic prejudice on their part. Its also ironic that you mention the NHS - when Attlee first brought that in he had to threaten the Unionists in NI with direct rule to get them to accept the NHS because those enlightened Protestant souls were afraid free health care would make the Catholics have even more children.

They have all manner of prejudices and some individuals are prepared to exhibit thuggish behaviour to enforce them. Here's another cultural similarity between Scotland and N Ireland. One we could well do without.

 

[Planigale]

There's one glaring omission from your list of things that make NI unionists reluctant to join the Republic - anti-Irish, anti-Catholic prejudice on their part. Its also ironic that you mention the NHS - when Attlee first brought that in he had to threaten the Unionists in NI with direct rule to get them to accept the NHS because those enlightened Protestant souls were afraid free health care would make the Catholics have even more children.

Yes people are really stupid, on a skeptic site one thing we should be able to agree on is that people are hugely misled by their irrational prejudices and people find it really hard to think logically.

 

[imodium]

I'm against nuclear weapons myself and in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament and scrapping Trident.

That doesn't alter the certain fact that it is SNP policy, should they ever get the independence they crave, to deny the UK its existing nuclear submarine base.

I can provide other specific policies if you insist, but I'm quite sure you can see them for yourselves. If an independent Scotland continued to provide all existing rights to rUK, then what would be the point of independence?

Scotland sits on a shed tonne of oil, last referendum Cameron, Brown etc told them they wouldn't be able to sell it for money.
Many Scots have since replaced their tenants for irn bru and realised you can actually sell oil for money, like England is doing for them now.
Using Brexit as a platform to sell their own oil is what's really going on, hoping more people lay off the super strength to realise you can actually sell goods for money.
If there is another referendum expect eBay, rather than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland to be their favoured model.