Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Craig B]

Sorry I just can't follow your logic - my comments are about the UK and the UK constitution?

A border in the island of Ireland affects the UK because part of Ireland is in the UK. But the Border doesn't affect the rest of Ireland even though it will be in Ireland, because the rest of Ireland's not in the UK. You can't follow a logic that seeks to question the above proposition?

 

[Darat]

A border in the island of Ireland affects the UK because part of Ireland is in the UK. But the Border doesn't affect the rest of Ireland even though it will be in Ireland, because the rest of Ireland's not in the UK. You can't follow a logic that seeks to question the above proposition?

I have no clue what your paragraph means! Sincerely it just reads as gibberish to me - please try again?

And when you do can you tag on what it has to do with what I was posting about i.e. the UK constitution?

 

[Strawberry]

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?

Whenever you're ready Darat...

 

[Craig B]

I have no clue what your paragraph means! Sincerely it just reads as gibberish to me - please try again?

And when you do can you tag on what it has to do with what I was posting about i.e. the UK constitution?

Your comments on the UK constitution were in response to this post.

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.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

So the UK government is in conflict with international law in saying Scotland is a nation?

Which statute?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And they keep saying "no".

Well sort of. Thats their right though. They dont have to say yes. It remains their decision and nobody elses.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It 100% is, you may not like that but it's simply a fact. Scotland is merely part of the UK.

No it isnt. Different opinions.

If Scotland were merely a part of the UK no different than Essex or Yorkshire we wouldnt be having this conversation.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Note the word "notional".

The amendment makes clear what would be a constitutional necessity anyhow: the referendum is being granted to Scotland on the basis that the Scottish regional parliament would be allowed the right to decide whether Scotland became an independent country, and the UK parliament would automatically ratify that decision (which, as you correctly said originally, would also require a UK Act of Parliament - hence my "notional Independence of Scotland Act"). Which, to all intents and purposes (as those who drafted the amendment and those within the Scottish regional parliament clearly and undoubtedly would have understood) meant this:

"We (the UK national parliament) are granting you (the Scottish electoral commission on behalf of the Scottish regional government) the right to hold a referendum. We are also giving you (the Scottish regional parliament) the right to decide whether or not Scotland becomes independent of the UK, based on the outcome of that referendum. And since we and you both already know that if there's a majority vote in favour of independence, then the will of the Scottish regional parliament will be to declare independence, we are therefore telling you that we will accept the will of the Scottish parliament for independence if this is indeed what happens. And this, by definition, means that we will automatically pass all necessary legislation through the UK parliament that would be required to satisfy the Scottish regional parliament's will for Scotland's independence."

Not really sure what you're driving at here tbh.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

In your opinion. Which you are entitled to but which carries no weight.

The current Scottish government is a continuation of the Scottish government of 300 years ago by its own unchallenged declaration.

Its odd that nobody feels the need to deny that Slovakia or Latvia have a right to self govern and reestablish their national identity. Or insist that they are not the same country. Or not countries at all.

 

[Darat]

Your comments on the UK constitution were in response to this post.

A border in the island of Ireland affects the UK because part of Ireland is in the UK. But the Border doesn't affect the rest of Ireland even though it will be in Ireland, because the rest of Ireland's not in the UK. You can't follow a logic that seeks to question the above proposition?

Whenever you're ready Darat...

Guys I'm not messing you around - I really, really don't understand what you are asking me??

 

[Darat]

In your opinion. Which you are entitled to but which carries no weight.

The current Scottish government is a continuation of the Scottish government of 300 years ago by its own unchallenged declaration.

I've just challenged it - so there that goes!

Its odd that nobody feels the need to deny that Slovakia or Latvia have a right to self govern and reestablish their national identity. Or insist that they are not the same country. Or not countries at all.

You do know the topic of this thread is "Indyref 2: This time it's personal."? That's perhaps why people aren't discussing different countries?

 

[LondonJohn]

So the UK government is in conflict with international law in saying Scotland is a nation?

Which statute?

Oh mannnnn.

You, I, the UK Government, Penn & Teller, Roger Federer.... we can all call Scotland whatever we want in the vernacular. Roger Federer can call it "The tartan-y fiefdom of Scotland" if he wants to. I can call it "The super-state republic of Scotland" if I want to. The UK government can call it "The nation of Scotland" if it wants to.

But in reality, under the accepted international definition of the term, Scotland is not a nation. Nor a country.

As I said, many people within and outside Germany still refer to "the Kingdom of Bavaria". Do you think this must be taken in its proper, internationally-accepted meaning: that Bavaria is ruled by a King/Queen - and thus, since a King/Queen is a head of state, Bavaria must be a nation state in its own right? Or can you see the difference between a vernacular colloquial usage of these sorts of terms (nation, country, Kingdom, etc) on the one hand, and the formal internationally-agreed definition of these sorts of terms on the other hand? And that under the proper definition of terms, Bavaria is no more or less than a federal region of Germany?

By all means, feel free to keep calling Scotland a nation or a country if you like. It isn't in fact either, but there's no harm in using those terms in a colloquial manner (unless and until you need to come face to face with international law.....).

 

[Strawberry]

Guys I'm not messing you around - I really, really don't understand what you are asking me??

Its not a complicated question - who do you think should be allowed to vote in a border poll on Northern Ireland?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Note the word "notional".

The amendment makes clear what would be a constitutional necessity anyhow: the referendum is being granted to Scotland on the basis that the Scottish regional parliament would be allowed the right to decide whether Scotland became an independent country, and the UK parliament would automatically ratify that decision (which, as you correctly said originally, would also require a UK Act of Parliament - hence my "notional Independence of Scotland Act"). Which, to all intents and purposes (as those who drafted the amendment and those within the Scottish regional parliament clearly and undoubtedly would have understood) meant this:

"We (the UK national parliament) are granting you (the Scottish electoral commission on behalf of the Scottish regional government) the right to hold a referendum. We are also giving you (the Scottish regional parliament) the right to decide whether or not Scotland becomes independent of the UK, based on the outcome of that referendum. And since we and you both already know that if there's a majority vote in favour of independence, then the will of the Scottish regional parliament will be to declare independence, we are therefore telling you that we will accept the will of the Scottish parliament for independence if this is indeed what happens. And this, by definition, means that we will automatically pass all necessary legislation through the UK parliament that would be required to satisfy the Scottish regional parliament's will for Scotland's independence."

Not really sure what you're driving at here tbh.

Correction. There is no Scottish regional government. There is a Scottish national parliament.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/devolved/

 

[Darat]

Its not a complicated question - who do you think should be allowed to vote in a border poll on Northern Ireland?

If it's not complicated then help me!

What do you mean by "..in a border poll on Northern Ireland"? I don't know what "a border poll" is?

 

[Strawberry]

If it's not complicated then help me!

What do you mean by "..in a border poll on Northern Ireland"? I don't know what "a border poll" is?

A referendum on whether NI should stay in the UK or join the Republic.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

Not accept it. (And for the n'th time, it's the UK parliament, not the UK government, that has the mandate to decide this. There's a significant difference, you know....?)

But as I've tried to point out several times now, the role of the UK parliament is to represent the interests of UK citizens in the optimum way, as they see fit. If such a situation were to develop, there might very well be a point where the UK parliament would decide that it was now in the collective best interest of all the citizens of the UK (including, incidentally, those living in Scotland) to grant Scotland independence from the UK. But until and unless that were to happen, Scotland's independence would almost certainly be illegal under international law.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Oh mannnnn.

You, I, the UK Government, Penn & Teller, Roger Federer.... we can all call Scotland whatever we want in the vernacular. Roger Federer can call it "The tartan-y fiefdom of Scotland" if he wants to. I can call it "The super-state republic of Scotland" if I want to. The UK government can call it "The nation of Scotland" if it wants to.

But in reality, under the accepted international definition of the term, Scotland is not a nation. Nor a country.

As I said, many people within and outside Germany still refer to "the Kingdom of Bavaria". Do you think this must be taken in its proper, internationally-accepted meaning: that Bavaria is ruled by a King/Queen - and thus, since a King/Queen is a head of state, Bavaria must be a nation state in its own right? Or can you see the difference between a vernacular colloquial usage of these sorts of terms (nation, country, Kingdom, etc) on the one hand, and the formal internationally-agreed definition of these sorts of terms on the other hand? And that under the proper definition of terms, Bavaria is no more or less than a federal region of Germany?

By all means, feel free to keep calling Scotland a nation or a country if you like. It isn't in fact either, but there's no harm in using those terms in a colloquial manner (unless and until you need to come face to face with international law.....).

So when you said international law you meant your opinion plus a bit of bluster?

Just quote the law you are talking about. Problem solved.

 

[Lothian]

Note the word "notional".

The amendment makes clear what would be a constitutional necessity anyhow: the referendum is being granted to Scotland on the basis that the Scottish regional parliament would be allowed the right to decide whether Scotland became an independent country, and the UK parliament would automatically ratify that decision (which, as you correctly said originally, would also require a UK Act of Parliament - hence my "notional Independence of Scotland Act"). Which, to all intents and purposes (as those who drafted the amendment and those within the Scottish regional parliament clearly and undoubtedly would have understood) meant this:

"We (the UK national parliament) are granting you (the Scottish electoral commission on behalf of the Scottish regional government) the right to hold a referendum. We are also giving you (the Scottish regional parliament) the right to decide whether or not Scotland becomes independent of the UK, based on the outcome of that referendum. And since we and you both already know that if there's a majority vote in favour of independence, then the will of the Scottish regional parliament will be to declare independence, we are therefore telling you that we will accept the will of the Scottish parliament for independence if this is indeed what happens. And this, by definition, means that we will automatically pass all necessary legislation through the UK parliament that would be required to satisfy the Scottish regional parliament's will for Scotland's independence."

Not really sure what you're driving at here tbh.

I still don't see anything about the post referendum action in the order. I don't think there is anything written about what would happen after the vote. All there was the promise of the fat faced dead pig **********.

No one knew what would happen if the vote went the the other way. Unlike Brexit with the automatic kick out 2 years after the button is pressed, with Scotland there was no time scale, no agreement what debts and resources would end up where, where territorial boundaries would be, what independence would actually mean.

It would still have needed a UK parliamentary vote to enact the separation. While the Scots would have voted for leave, I dare say UK MPs could have voted the bill down if they disagreed with the terms.

I wondered if you had seen text that said otherwise.

 

[LondonJohn]

Its not a complicated question - who do you think should be allowed to vote in a border poll on Northern Ireland?

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