Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
That would be democratic.

Denying the people of NI self-determination would not be.
Click to expand...


Entirely wrong. The democracy at issue here is the democratic will of the people of the sovereign state. The UK.

It would be entirely democratic, and entirely lawful, for the UK (via the UK parliament) to "deny the people of NI self-determination". Just as it is entirely democratic and lawful for the UK to deny me my own individual self-determination, and for the UK to deny Scotland its self-determination.

But what many here seem either unable or unwilling to grasp is that, while the above is absolutely true and correct, at the same time the UK parliament is charged with optimising its decisions in the best interests of the entire body of citizens of the UK. And if/when the UK parliament decides that it is in the best interest of the whole of the UK to allow NI self-determination, then it should and will allow that to happen. Likewise with Scotland. Likewise with me personally.

If, say, in two years time, there is strong clamour from within NI for self-determination, the UK parliament might well decide that it was then appropriate, and in the best interests of the UK as a whole, to allow NI the right to self-determination. That's a (constant) judgement call for the UK parliament - it's one of the things we elect them to do on our behalf, as citizens of the UK. Again, it's called representative democracy. Of a sovereign nation. The UK.
 
Darat said:
It is a direct answer to your question.

The type of referendum you are apparently making a case for is not one that could happen* under the UK constitution (nor would it under of the kind of amendments/reforms I believe the UK should make to its constitution).




*In other words the UK has no way to bind another country to abide by the results of UK referendums.
Click to expand...

The type of referendum I'm talking about is already predicted under both UK law and an international treaty co-signed by the British government and lodged at the UN. So now you know that, who do you think should participate in it, just Northern Ireland or the whole UK?

I find it somewhat extraordinary btw, that people who say they care so much about the UK that they want to hold on to Scotland against the will of the people who live there know so little about the constitutional arrangements which already exist in UK law.
 
LondonJohn said:
What? How on earth did you make THAT extrapolation?

The people of the UK should have a SAY in whether or not NI leaves the UK. Almost certainly, that say would come via the democratically-elected representatives of the people of the whole of the UK, in the UK national parliament. The UK parliament would have to give its assent - on behalf of the peoples of the entire UK - for NI to decide whether or not to leave the UK.

Clear now?
Click to expand...

And this is where I think our constitution does need to be modernised - such a decision should go to a national referendum and not be down to a simple majority of MPs in parliament.
 
LondonJohn said:
Entirely wrong. The democracy at issue here is the democratic will of the people of the sovereign state. The UK.

It would be entirely democratic, and entirely lawful, for the UK (via the UK parliament) to "deny the people of NI self-determination". Just as it is entirely democratic and lawful for the UK to deny me my own individual self-determination, and for the UK to deny Scotland its self-determination.

But what many here seem either unable or unwilling to grasp is that, while the above is absolutely true and correct, at the same time the UK parliament is charged with optimising its decisions in the best interests of the entire body of citizens of the UK. And if/when the UK parliament decides that it is in the best interest of the whole of the UK to allow NI self-determination, then it should and will allow that to happen. Likewise with Scotland. Likewise with me personally.

If, say, in two years time, there is strong clamour from within NI for self-determination, the UK parliament might well decide that it was then appropriate, and in the best interests of the UK as a whole, to allow NI the right to self-determination. That's a (constant) judgement call for the UK parliament - it's one of the things we elect them to do on our behalf, as citizens of the UK. Again, it's called representative democracy. Of a sovereign nation. The UK.
Click to expand...

Have you never read the Good Friday Agreement? Or is it your opinion that the UK can sign treaties and then flagrantly breach them whenever it suits you?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Can you be 'implicitly clear' about something?
Click to expand...


Yes. Of course you can. One can clearly imply something, or one can imply something in a cloudy, vague and unclear manner.

1) I get angry for the several hours after my football team loses a match. My football team lost a match an hour ago. = clear implication that I am currently angry.

2) I sometimes get angry if my football team loses heavily. My football team lost its last match recently. = some implication that I might currently be angry, but only a vague and unclear one.

Hope that helps :)
 
Lothian said:
Again can you please provide a link to the text where thus is said or implied.
Click to expand...


This Order modifies Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (c.46). Schedule 5 defines reserved matters (matters which are outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament) for the purposes of that Act. The Order provides an exception to the reservation of the Constitution under paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 so that a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom is not a reserved matter if certain requirements are met.
 
Strawberry said:
Have you never read the Good Friday Agreement? Or is it your opinion that the UK can sign treaties and then flagrantly breach them whenever it suits you?
Click to expand...


You still don't get it? The UK parliament ratified the Good Friday Agreement on behalf of the people of the whole of the UK. So all the GFA has done has been to introduce already a level of UK acceptance of certain conditions. The GFA had to be assented to by the UK parliament. That's................ the point.

Was going to say I don't know why I bother, but I don't know why I don't know why I bother, so......
 
LondonJohn said:
Entirely wrong. The democracy at issue here is the democratic will of the people of the sovereign state. The UK.

It would be entirely democratic, and entirely lawful, for the UK (via the UK parliament) to "deny the people of NI self-determination". Just as it is entirely democratic and lawful for the UK to deny me my own individual self-determination, and for the UK to deny Scotland its self-determination.

But what many here seem either unable or unwilling to grasp is that, while the above is absolutely true and correct, at the same time the UK parliament is charged with optimising its decisions in the best interests of the entire body of citizens of the UK. And if/when the UK parliament decides that it is in the best interest of the whole of the UK to allow NI self-determination, then it should and will allow that to happen. Likewise with Scotland. Likewise with me personally.

If, say, in two years time, there is strong clamour from within NI for self-determination, the UK parliament might well decide that it was then appropriate, and in the best interests of the UK as a whole, to allow NI the right to self-determination. That's a (constant) judgement call for the UK parliament - it's one of the things we elect them to do on our behalf, as citizens of the UK. Again, it's called representative democracy. Of a sovereign nation. The UK.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the concept of democracy. Or you do and you don't like it.

Self-determination is a cornerstone of democracy and the only people who would deny it to others are tyrants.

Self-determination is not a principle that applies to individuals.

That we're even discussing this shows how far out of touch with the debate you are. You really have no place on this thread until you are caught up on the past 50 years of the discussion and several centuries of human progress.
 
LondonJohn said:
This Order modifies Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (c.46). Schedule 5 defines reserved matters (matters which are outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament) for the purposes of that Act. The Order provides an exception to the reservation of the Constitution under paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 so that a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom is not a reserved matter if certain requirements are met.
Click to expand...

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
 
Strawberry said:
The type of referendum I'm talking about is already predicted under both UK law and an international treaty co-signed by the British government and lodged at the UN. So now you know that, who do you think should participate in it, just Northern Ireland or the whole UK?
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed a rather critical point of the discussion. My comments were not on what we have in place today, but what I think we should have in place in regards to the UK constitution and major changes to the UK.


Strawberry said:
I find it somewhat extraordinary btw, that people who say they care so much about the UK that they want to hold on to Scotland against the will of the people who live there know so little about the constitutional arrangements which already exist in UK law.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear - you do know I am not someone who "want(s) to hold on to Scotland against the will of the people who live there "? You won't find me saying or in any post on the forum that Scotland should not be independent if that's what the population wants*. My issues have always been with the democratic deficit contained in the last Indyref.

(*unless it was a joke post or I was being very sarcastic about something)
 
LondonJohn said:
You still don't get it? The UK parliament ratified the Good Friday Agreement on behalf of the people of the whole of the UK. So all the GFA has done has been to introduce already a level of UK acceptance of certain conditions. The GFA had to be assented to by the UK parliament. That's................ the point.

Was going to say I don't know why I bother, but I don't know why I don't know why I bother, so......
Click to expand...

So you haven't read it then. If you had, you'd know that Parliament will not be voting on the issue of a border poll in NI. Once the UK and Irish parliaments voted to ratify it, they became co-guarantors of an international treaty.

Shame for Scotland that they don't have an equivalent, because in the GFA the trigger for a border poll is the election of a nationalist First Minister. So Nicola Sturgeon's election would in itself bind the Secretary of State for Scotland to call a referendum. Since we're all concerned about consistent treatment of people across the UK, maybe the same principle should be adhered to in Scotland?
 
Darat said:
And this is where I think our constitution does need to be modernised - such a decision should go to a national referendum and not be down to a simple majority of MPs in parliament.
Click to expand...


Well, the idea is that we elect MPs in a democratically fair, just and proportionate manner, to represent our interests in creating and passing legislation and other matters pertaining to the government (small g) of the UK. So we, in a very real sense, devolve our collective individual decision-making responsibilities to them. And there are some very sound reasons why this may be, on the whole, the best way to do things. After all, parliaments (in c21) tend to consist of able people from many walks of life who are dedicated to learning, scrutinising and debating these matters, in order to come to conclusions (via parliamentary votes and the enactment of legislation) which aim to be in the best interests of the collective citizen population of the UK.

And for a vivid illustration of why parliaments are often far better placed to make well-informed decisions that end up optimising the lives of the citizens they represent, look no further than the EU referendum................
 
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...

It'll be the line after the one that confirms Scotland isn't a country.
 
Strawberry said:
So you haven't read it then. If you had, you'd know that Parliament will not be voting on the issue of a border poll in NI. Once the UK and Irish parliaments voted to ratify it, they became co-guarantors of an international treaty.

Shame for Scotland that they don't have an equivalent, because in the GFA the trigger for a border poll is the election of a nationalist First Minister. So Nicola Sturgeon's election would in itself bind the Secretary of State for Scotland to call a referendum. Since we're all concerned about consistent treatment of people across the UK, maybe the same principle should be adhered to in Scotland?
Click to expand...


*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.
 
Darat said:
Just to be clear - you do know I am not someone who "want(s) to hold on to Scotland against the will of the people who live there "? You won't find me saying or in any post on the forum that Scotland should not be independent if that's what the population wants*. My issues have always been with the democratic deficit contained in the last Indyref.

(*unless it was a joke post or I was being very sarcastic about something)
Click to expand...

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?

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?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
You don't seem to understand the concept of democracy. Or you do and you don't like it.

Self-determination is a cornerstone of democracy and the only people who would deny it to others are tyrants.

...snip....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Darat said:
You seem to have missed a rather critical point of the discussion. My comments were not on what we have in place today, but what I think we should have in place in regards to the UK constitution and major changes to the UK.
Click to expand...

Yes, and what do you think we should have in place when it comes to a vote on NI? Should the whole UK participate in the vote, or just NI?

Just to be clear - you do know I am not someone who "want(s) to hold on to Scotland against the will of the people who live there "? You won't find me saying or in any post on the forum that Scotland should not be independent if that's what the population wants*. My issues have always been with the democratic deficit contained in the last Indyref.

(*unless it was a joke post or I was being very sarcastic about something)
Click to expand...

If you don't want to hold on to Scotland against their will, why do you think there was a democratic deficit in the last indyref? There's no point in the whole UK voting about Scotland if you're going to end up respecting the vote in Scotland only. Might as well just have a vote in Scotland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom