Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[LondonJohn]

Oh, and this article makes interesting reading:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-why-scotland-will-not-get-an-independence-referendum-2016-6


It contains such interesting snippets as (my bolding for emphasis):

Scotland may have its own parliament, but to hold a national referendum it still needs permission from Westminster in London.

Dr. Catterall (that's constitutional expert Peter Catterall from Westminster University) says:

"The argument the UK government may put forward is that it needs to approve a second Scottish referendum and could, in theory, withhold the consent. When the Americans wanted independence in 1776 they did it by violence. We don’t want that — we want to follow constitutional procedure. The question then becomes, how far do you push against the inevitable?"


Maybe you guys should add Dr Peter Catterall to your list of people saying "unpleasant" things about Scotland - for the "crime" of pointing out the constitutional & legal position correctly, accurately and dispassionately. Either way, you should definitely contact him to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about

 

[LondonJohn]

Repeating your unpleasantness in any typecase doesn't make it any kind of fact. The people of kosovo weren't a separate people from the Serbs either. Except they were. And are.

Both Holyrood and Westminster have agreed that the people of Scotland are separate and different and have the right to self-determination. Your single extremist unpleasant view doesn't change that.

I'll write this in caps since you suggest its a way to communicate that might work on you.

THE SELF DETERMINATION OF THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE IS A MATTER ON WHICH THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE WILL DECIDE.

AND WHICH WILL, ENTIRELY CORRECTLY, HAVE TO BE ASSENTED TO AND RATIFIED BY THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.

(Check out the view of a constitutional expert in my previous post. It's precisely as wrong and insulting as my view )

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Oh, and this article makes interesting reading:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-why-scotland-will-not-get-an-independence-referendum-2016-6


It contains such interesting snippets as (my bolding for emphasis):

Scotland may have its own parliament, but to hold a national referendum it still needs permission from Westminster in London.

Dr. Catterall (that's constitutional expert Peter Catterall from Westminster University) says:

"The argument the UK government may put forward is that it needs to approve a second Scottish referendum and could, in theory, withhold the consent. When the Americans wanted independence in 1776 they did it by violence. We don’t want that — we want to follow constitutional procedure. The question then becomes, how far do you push against the inevitable?"


Maybe you guys should add Dr Peter Catterall to your list of people saying "unpleasant" things about Scotland - for the "crime" of pointing out the constitutional & legal position correctly, accurately and dispassionately. Either way, you should definitely contact him to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about

Your man is simply wrong. Holyrood can hold a referendum if it wants. What would Westminster do to stop it? The only questions is whether that referendum would be justification to declare independence. Anyone saying it would definitely not be is speculating.

And yes if Dr Peter Catterall insists on this interpretation of his view then its an unpleasant view. He's not a member of this forum though so what can I do? ETA: Even in your quotes he already seems to be stepping away from the assertion though. In theory they could withold the consent...but they wouldn't want to try.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

AND WHICH WILL, ENTIRELY CORRECTLY, HAVE TO BE ASSENTED TO AND RATIFIED BY THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.

(Check out the view of a constitutional expert in my previous post. It's precisely as wrong and insulting as my view )

If you and your one mate want to shout in caps about how much you disregard the principle of self-determination and ignore actual statements by actual people who matter then apparently I can't stop you.

Did Serbia assent to the independence of Kosovo?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

AND WHICH WILL, ENTIRELY CORRECTLY, HAVE TO BE ASSENTED TO AND RATIFIED BY THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.

(Check out the view of a constitutional expert in my previous post. It's precisely as wrong and insulting as my view )

NOPE.

Did the people of Serbia assent to the independence of Kosovo?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Not sure if it's here or the Brexit thread but Theresa May has no idea what she is doing and is going to be the PM that oversaw the break-up of the UK because of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...on-says-brexit-meeting-was-deeply-frustrating

 

[LondonJohn]

If you and your one mate want to shout in caps about how much you disregard the principle of self-determination and ignore actual statements by actual people who matter then apparently I can't stop you.

Did Serbia assent to the independence of Kosovo?

Erm, Dr Peter Catterall is not "my mate". He is, however, an academic constitutional expert with a very impressive CV in the field. And like I say, if he's as wrong as you say I am (and bearing in mind that his expert view is exactly the same as the view I hold), then his email is P.Catterall@westminster.ac.uk - feel free to contact him and tell him off in very strong terms for being both incorrect, anti-Scottish and anti-Scottish-independence. I'm confident that if you contact him, he will give your expert balanced views on the matter the gravity and attention they deserve.

And you've already been told, several times now, that Kosovo/Serbia was an extraordinarily different state of affairs. Kosovo was (correctly and justly) allowed in international law to declare independence unilaterally from its erstwhile "parent" Serbia. And why? Because Kosovo had effectively been colonised by Serbia (and Yugoslavia before that), and had been clearly and demonstrably repressed - culturally, economically, politically and militarily - by Serbia (and Yug) in the years leading up to its UDI. As a direct result, the UN had already placed the region of Kosovo under special UN administration, following the combination of UN sanctions against Serbia and NATO-led bombing of Serbia, which were both explicitly intended to force Serbia to back off in Kosovo. It was against this background that Kosovo declared UDI, and against this background that its UDI was declared lawful and legitimate by the ICJ.

So, as I said before, unless the UN has already declared Scotland as a special administrative protectorate (on the grounds that the UK is systematically and demonstrably repressing Scotland politically, culturally, economically and/or militarily), and/or that the UK has been undergoing political and economic sanctions from the UN on account of its treatment of Scotland, and/or that NATO has been bombing the UK in an attempt to force to UK to back off from Scotland (and I somehow missed any or all of that happening right on my doorstep.....), then the Kosovo/Serbia example is at best a fatuously inappropriate attempt at a comparator to Scotland/UK, or (at worst) it's a mischievous attempt at misdirection.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Erm, Dr Peter Catterall is not "my mate". He is, however, an academic constitutional expert with a very impressive CV in the field. And like I say, if he's as wrong as you say I am (and bearing in mind that his expert view is exactly the same as the view I hold), then his email is P.Catterall@westminster.ac.uk - feel free to contact him and tell him off in very strong terms for being both incorrect, anti-Scottish and anti-Scottish-independence. I'm confident that if you contact him, he will give your expert balanced views on the matter the gravity and attention they deserve.

And you've already been told, several times now, that Kosovo/Serbia was an extraordinarily different state of affairs. Kosovo was (correctly and justly) allowed in international law to declare independence unilaterally from its erstwhile "parent" Serbia. And why? Because Kosovo had effectively been colonised by Serbia (and Yugoslavia before that), and had been clearly and demonstrably repressed - culturally, economically, politically and militarily - by Serbia (and Yug) in the years leading up to its UDI. As a direct result, the UN had already placed the region of Kosovo under special UN administration, following the combination of UN sanctions against Serbia and NATO-led bombing of Serbia, which were both explicitly intended to force Serbia to back off in Kosovo. It was against this background that Kosovo declared UDI, and against this background that its UDI was declared lawful and legitimate by the ICJ.

So, as I said before, unless the UN has already declared Scotland as a special administrative protectorate (on the grounds that the UK is systematically and demonstrably repressing Scotland politically, culturally, economically and/or militarily), and/or that the UK has been undergoing political and economic sanctions from the UN on account of its treatment of Scotland, and/or that NATO has been bombing the UK in an attempt to force to UK to back off from Scotland (and I somehow missed any or all of that happening right on my doorstep.....), then the Kosovo/Serbia example is at best a fatuously inappropriate attempt at a comparator to Scotland/UK, or (at worst) it's a mischievous attempt at misdirection.

More garbage in high volume. You still haven't addressed the only question that matters. What is your motivation for insisting on all of this? Why do you need to deny the self-determination of Scotland? Why is it so important to you that your own personal view at odds with your own government and mine is given prominence even when its not true? Can't you just accept that there are people in the world who think differently than you and want different things and that you don't get to decide what they are allowed to get?

Your view on Kosovo is wrong. Nothing you said counters the multitude of views I posted. Nothing in those views relates to oppression or bombing or any of your misdirection. But wow you go beyond that and state that Kosovo had been colonised despite it not being a country or a nation according to your criteria. You're just making up the rules to suit your petty prejudice. So the only question left is again why you get so heated about the self determination of someone else who just happens to be Scotland but not Kosovo?

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 12

 

[Craig B]

Since you're (repeatedly) accusing me of personal unpleasantness, do me the courtesy of pointing out the "unpleasantness" of my post, would you, and precisely and explicitly how/why you consider it to be "unpleasant"? Thanks.

I'm not sure if you're being accused of "personal" unpleasantness. The bizarre arrogance of your constitutional standpoint is certainly unpleasant. To my mind, however, what is most striking is the witless unrealism of the position you have adopted, rather than its unpleasantness.

Parliament can't enforce pretensions like that any more. To be taken seriously it would have to be able - and willing - to send in the redcoats, or the bluejackets, or the Black and Tans. If Westminster can't do that - and to its credit it doesn't want to do that - then the decision about whether or not we should be independent belongs to us and not to any imperial conclave.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Again neutral observers will notice that apparently Kosovo was colonised while Scotland is not a nation. You might wonder what the reason for this distinction might be. Me to. Somewhere amongst it all there might be a sensible argument but its highly unlikely. No, at its heart the only one distinction that matters prevails. Scotland is ours and they will do what they are told.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not sure if you're being accused of "personal" unpleasantness. The bizarre arrogance of your constitutional standpoint is certainly unpleasant. To my mind, however, what is most striking is the witless unrealism of the position you have adopted, rather than its unpleasantness.

Parliament can't enforce pretensions like that any more. To be taken seriously it would have to be able - and willing - to send in the redcoats, or the bluejackets, or the Black and Tans. If Westminster can't do that - and to its credit it doesn't want to do that - then the decision about whether or not we should be independent belongs to us and not to any imperial conclave.

My "constitutional standpoint" is nothing more or less than the constitutional (and legal) factual position as it stands. The fact that you don't seem to like the constitutional and legal position is neither here nor there - although there would be a debate to be had as to whether that factual position is fair or appropriate. We're not having that debate though are we? The "debate" we're currently having is that I'm repeatedly asserting (correctly) that this is the factual position, and then in reply others are repeatedly trying to say that, variously, a) this is not the factual position, and/or b) I have some sort of agenda (presumably an "anti-Scottish" or "anti-Scottish-independence" agenda from the sounds of things) in continuing to set out the facts.

Perhaps everything will become easier to understand if I go back to analogies, which might have the beneficial effect of dampening or removing the nationalist rhetoric from the issue. So here goes:

1) Glaxo and Smithkline Beecham merged in 2000 to form a single larger merged company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). If in 2016 the workers and local management boards in the former Smithkline Beecham factories and offices decided they wanted to "demerge" from GSK, would/should the board of GSK and its shareholders (note: not the board etc of the former Glaxo) have any right to consent to (or not consent to) such a move? If so, why? If not, why not? Or should the workers and local management boards in the former Smithkline Beecham factories and offices have the absolute and unencumbered right to demerge from GSK if that is their will? If so, why? If not, why not?

2) Suppose I and a group of nine other like-minded friends (who currently live in the UK as UK citizens) have a raucous session in the pub one night and decide that we want to buy a large house with 20 acres of private grounds, form an independent nation state, and split off from the UK to form the independent nation of LJ-tania. Do we have the inalienable right to self-determination? Does any other entity or polity (within the UK or internationally) have the right to say whether my 9 friends and I have the right to self-determination? Or is our will for self-determination reason enough, in and of itself, for us to be allowed to declare independence and become a nation state in our own right? And if the answer to the previous question is "no", then what is the threshold of population and/or land area for any region/group within an existing parent state to have the automatic right to self-determination and independence from the parent state?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My "constitutional standpoint" is nothing more or less than the constitutional (and legal) factual position as it stands. The fact that you don't seem to like the constitutional and legal position is neither here nor there - although there would be a debate to be had as to whether that factual position is fair or appropriate. We're not having that debate though are we? The "debate" we're currently having is that I'm repeatedly asserting (correctly) that this is the factual position, and then in reply others are repeatedly trying to say that, variously, a) this is not the factual position, and/or b) I have some sort of agenda (presumably an "anti-Scottish" or "anti-Scottish-independence" agenda from the sounds of things) in continuing to set out the facts.

Perhaps everything will become easier to understand if I go back to analogies, which might have the beneficial effect of dampening or removing the nationalist rhetoric from the issue. So here goes:

1) Glaxo and Smithkline Beecham merged in 2000 to form a single larger merged company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). If in 2016 the workers and local management boards in the former Smithkline Beecham factories and offices decided they wanted to "demerge" from GSK, would/should the board of GSK and its shareholders (note: not the board etc of the former Glaxo) have any right to consent to (or not consent to) such a move? If so, why? If not, why not? Or should the workers and local management boards in the former Smithkline Beecham factories and offices have the absolute and unencumbered right to demerge from GSK if that is their will? If so, why? If not, why not?

2) Suppose I and a group of nine other like-minded friends (who currently live in the UK as UK citizens) have a raucous session in the pub one night and decide that we want to buy a large house with 20 acres of private grounds, form an independent nation state, and split off from the UK to form the independent nation of LJ-tania. Do we have the inalienable right to self-determination? Does any other entity or polity (within the UK or internationally) have the right to say whether my 9 friends and I have the right to self-determination? Or is our will for self-determination reason enough, in and of itself, for us to be allowed to declare independence and become a nation state in our own right? And if the answer to the previous question is "no", then what is the threshold of population and/or land area for any region/group within an existing parent state to have the automatic right to self-determination and independence from the parent state?

If anything you said was backed up by facts its would be an amazing turnaround. You have now retreated to the UK constitutional position it seems after being shooed off the international law landscape by actual facts.

The problem is that the UK constitution doesn't trump everything else. And even the UK government acknowledges that. While the UK constitution reserves matters of independence to London even London acknowledges that its an untenable position and that if the people of Scotland want to be independent they will be.

Your insulting analogies aside what facts could dissuade you of your racist view that the people of Scotland are subservient to the people of England Wales and Northern Ireland in their self-determination? Seriously what other than Scotland gaining a seat in the UN would cause you to think twice?

The UK government dont agree with you on what the UK government can and can't do. I'd suggest that should make you think again...

 

[LondonJohn]

No attempt to answer my questions sensibly or dispassionately then. I can't say I'm surprised at this point.....

As a final plea for better understanding and enlightenment, I'd strongly recommend that inquiring minds do two pieces of research:

1) Examine the exact mechanism and process whereby the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum came to be held (with the associated promise to respect its outcome), and the role played by the UK government (in the form of the executive, led by then-PM Cameron, and the national parliament in Westminster).

2) Contact the offices of either Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond (or, for that matter, any SNP senior politician who is sufficiently intelligent and informed to understand this issue) and ask them how the Scottish government will be approaching the process of holding another referendum and the process towards declaring Scotland's independence at some point in the future.


WRT (1), it's very quick and easy to discover that what actually happened was that the Scottish SNP-led government had a series of discussions with the UK national government and parliament, with the explicit aim of persuading the UK government (in the form of the executive and the parliament) to grant Scotland the right to have an independence referendum. This culminated in the "Edinburgh Declaration" in 2012, when the UK national government agreed to devolve (temporarily) the power to hold a referendum on Scottish independence to the Scottish parliament, and also assured the Scottish parliament that it (the UK national government) would uphold the outcome of the referendum (i.e. if the majority vote was for independence, the UK government would automatically pass bills of assent for Scottish independence).

WRT (2), I am 100% confident that senior SNP politicians, who actually understand the constitutional and legal issues at play here, would state unequivocally that their route to a further independence referendum (and consequent independence for Scotland, if that's the majority outcome of this referendum) will be first to become confident that any further referendum would result in a significant "Leave" majority, then to take this to the UK national government to begin negotiations for the UK government to grant permission for a further referendum (and associated promise to honour its outcome). And they know that only when the UK national government assents to a further referendum (probably in the same form as last time: by passing an amendment to the Scotland Act temporarily devolving the right to hold a Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish government, and making clear its pledge to honour the result by passing appropriate legislation if Scotland voted for independence) will they go ahead and do so.

Senior SNP politicians, I am effectively certain, understand full well that this is the only route which has constitutional and legal robustness and propriety. Their job will be to persuade the UK national government that it should be in the UK's national interests to allow a further Scottish independence referendum, and to allow Scotland to become independent if this is the majority will in such a referendum.

I am also effectively certain that senior SNP politicians would not dream of acting unilaterally in holding a further referendum - far less declaring UDI if such a unilateral referendum were to result in a majority "Leave". If, during future negotiations between the Scottish and UK governments, the UK national government were, for example, to say something to the Scottish government along the lines of "We'd like to see independent polling support for Scottish independence running at 55%+ for the next two years before agreeing to a further referendum", the Scottish government would either agree or would try to negotiate with the UK government to change its mind on this point. What it would NOT do would be to say something like "Sod your reservations! We demand self-determination now, and we'll do it with or without your support!". They know full well that to do so would be to open up a damaging and unnecessary constitutional crisis.

But of course, me pointing all this out is like me banging my head against a brick wall. I suspect that if certain extremists were even to hear this from the mouth of Sturgeon or Salmond, they'd find some way to say it wasn't correct...........

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No attempt to answer my questions sensibly or dispassionately then. I can't say I'm surprised at this point.....

As a final plea for better understanding and enlightenment, I'd strongly recommend that inquiring minds do two pieces of research:

1) Examine the exact mechanism and process whereby the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum came to be held (with the associated promise to respect its outcome), and the role played by the UK government (in the form of the executive, led by then-PM Cameron, and the national parliament in Westminster).

2) Contact the offices of either Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond (or, for that matter, any SNP senior politician who is sufficiently intelligent and informed to understand this issue) and ask them how the Scottish government will be approaching the process of holding another referendum and the process towards declaring Scotland's independence at some point in the future.


WRT (1), it's very quick and easy to discover that what actually happened was that the Scottish SNP-led government had a series of discussions with the UK national government and parliament, with the explicit aim of persuading the UK government (in the form of the executive and the parliament) to grant Scotland the right to have an independence referendum. This culminated in the "Edinburgh Declaration" in 2012, when the UK national government agreed to devolve (temporarily) the power to hold a referendum on Scottish independence to the Scottish parliament, and also assured the Scottish parliament that it (the UK national government) would uphold the outcome of the referendum (i.e. if the majority vote was for independence, the UK government would automatically pass bills of assent for Scottish independence).

WRT (2), I am 100% confident that senior SNP politicians, who actually understand the constitutional and legal issues at play here, would state unequivocally that their route to a further independence referendum (and consequent independence for Scotland, if that's the majority outcome of this referendum) will be first to become confident that any further referendum would result in a significant "Leave" majority, then to take this to the UK national government to begin negotiations for the UK government to grant permission for a further referendum (and associated promise to honour its outcome). And they know that only when the UK national government assents to a further referendum (probably in the same form as last time: by passing an amendment to the Scotland Act temporarily devolving the right to hold a Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish government, and making clear its pledge to honour the result by passing appropriate legislation if Scotland voted for independence) will they go ahead and do so.

Senior SNP politicians, I am effectively certain, understand full well that this is the only route which has constitutional and legal robustness and propriety. Their job will be to persuade the UK national government that it should be in the UK's national interests to allow a further Scottish independence referendum, and to allow Scotland to become independent if this is the majority will in such a referendum.

I am also effectively certain that senior SNP politicians would not dream of acting unilaterally in holding a further referendum - far less declaring UDI if such a unilateral referendum were to result in a majority "Leave". If, during future negotiations between the Scottish and UK governments, the UK national government were, for example, to say something to the Scottish government along the lines of "We'd like to see independent polling support for Scottish independence running at 55%+ for the next two years before agreeing to a further referendum", the Scottish government would either agree or would try to negotiate with the UK government to change its mind on this point. What it would NOT do would be to say something like "Sod your reservations! We demand self-determination now, and we'll do it with or without your support!". They know full well that to do so would be to open up a damaging and unnecessary constitutional crisis.

But of course, me pointing all this out is like me banging my head against a brick wall. I suspect that if certain extremists were even to hear this from the mouth of Sturgeon or Salmond, they'd find some way to say it wasn't correct...........

Absolutely none of this is relevant and merely sees you backtracking to a position that you weren't arguing initially and which was already stated by me in my very first (I think) response to you.

The simplest and quickest path is to follow the process of getting an agreement from the UK government to hold the referendum as happened in 2014. Nobody disputes this. Other paths will be messy and difficult.

However those other paths exist. Contrary to your insistence. That a "damaging and unnecessary constitutional crisis" would in your opinion result from them is good reason why your concern should be that Theresa May isn't stupid enough to cause one by refusing her permission to hold a referendum should the Scottish Government desire one.

This would be a far better use of your energy then attempting to convince the people of Scotland that they do not have a right to self-determination or that their political and constitutional future is a football for Westminster.

 

[Craig B]

Suppose I and a group of nine other like-minded friends (who currently live in the UK as UK citizens) have a raucous session in the pub one night and decide that we want to buy a large house with 20 acres of private grounds, form an independent nation state, and split off from the UK to form the independent nation of LJ-tania. Do we have the inalienable right to self-determination? Does any other entity or polity (within the UK or internationally) have the right to say whether my 9 friends and I have the right to self-determination? Or is our will for self-determination reason enough, in and of itself, for us to be allowed to declare independence and become a nation state in our own right? And if the answer to the previous question is "no", then what is the threshold of population and/or land area for any region/group within an existing parent state to have the automatic right to self-determination and independence from the parent state?

I don't give a toss whether you and your friends are UK citizens, and what you get up to in pubs. You and they are not a constituent country in the U.K., and likewise Scotland is not a random collection of people constituting a region/group. Neither do Scotland, or your toper friends constitute a corporate financial undertaking like Glaxo, so none of this is of the slightest significance. Moreover, not even the Unionists in the government or the Labour Party spout such nonsense. To the contrary, they swear "vows" promising to uphold the sacred institutions of Scotland, if only our esteemed country will consent to stay in the UK.

 

[Architect]

What a car crash of a thread.

Country is a subjective term which means different things to different people. Statehood, on the other hand, is rather well defined in international law and requires:

a) a permanent population;

b) a defined territory;

c) a government in its own right; and

d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Until the Act of Union, Scotland clearly met all 4 tests. It currently meets tests (a) and (b), but only partially (c) inasmuch as substantive powers are reserved to Westminster. If does not meet test (d).

Any discussion as to why (say) Church Street, Hartlepool of 9 blokes down the pub cannot adopt independence inasmuch as such a move will fail at least one of the steps. Large regional groupings such as the north of England might come a bit closer, but there is no mechanism of government beyond local authority in these areas and thus they fall far short of (c).

The SNP position, one assumes, that if the permanent population (hence the exclusion of non-residents) within the defined territory vote for self determination then it is reasonable for them to enter into secession negotiations to secure the reamining sovereign powers per (c) and thereafter (d).

Where the (say) Orkney or Shetland independence analogy fails, to my mind, is that these have been peaceful and willing constituents of the predecessor state (and current constituent country) and on a fair reading form part of the cultural continuium of Scotland. There is no strong evidence of a secessionist (i.e. from Scotland) movement, although of course that is not to say that one might not appear at some future point.

If TM and Westminster refuse to recognise that Scotland partially meets the tests for statehood - and arguably that there is a difference, be it culturally, legally, or whatever - then it merely serves to reinforce the view of a substantial proportion of the resident Scottish electorate that they are being sidelined or overlooked regardless of the merits of such an argument.

Likewise the SNP knows that, even if it secures a democratic mandate to negotiate for statehood, it will require the co-operation of Westiminster to effect that change in status failing which we might see a Brexit-type fall-out or worse.

I don't see why some commentators here find this so difficult to grasp. Scotland is not the same as Cornwall, Sussex, or Norfolk. It has (and indeed has guaranteed in the Act of Union) its own legal and educational systems. It enjoys significant self-government and has consistently (of late) returned politicians of a distinct political hue from that of Westminster. There is, despite what some might wish, a clear case that a popular vote for independence would meet the tests required for the Right of Self-Determination in Common Article 1 of ICCPR and ICESCR.

In determining whether there is a case for a second referendum, those opposing the case might do well to remember that - notwithstanding the comments made previously - independence remains a key plank (perhaps "the") of the SNP manifesto, and that this party has been returned for a third term. Brexit has changed much, and if the Holyrood government decides to move forward them that is entirely a matter for the Scottish electorate - not 9 blokes down a pub somewhere in the south, no matter how they feel about England and Britain (or the extent to which they might conflate the two).

 

[Architect]

And as an aside, I note that the UK no longer fully meets test (d) inasmuch as a number of treaties now lie within the domain of the EU and that consequently one might argue there was a restriction of exercising some aspects of sovereign power (c) likewise.

This will, of course, change if and when Brexit goes ahead on the basis of what TM claims was the clear settled will of the people of the UK (52%? Settled will? Seriously?). That does, of course, rather show that constitutional arrangements are not set in stone to the extent that some here would like to suggest.

 

[Aber]

the clear settled will of the people of the UK (52%? Settled will? Seriously?).

So what should the threshold be?

 

[catsmate]

I think the only person confused about the words "nation", "country" and "state" is LondonJohn, and his confusion is probably deliberate. The rest of us know full well that Scotland is a country, and always* has been even though it hasn't been a nation state since 1707.

*Since the 9th century anyway.

As the ONS put it:

The top-level division of administrative geography in the UK is the 4 countries – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

[catsmate]

I'll write the following in capitals, since you still don't understand:

THE UK (AND ITS PEOPLE) ARE NOT A "SEPARATE PEOPLE" FROM SCOTLAND AND ITS PEOPLE. RATHER, SCOTLAND AND ITS PEOPLE ARE A SUBSET OF THE UK AND ITS PEOPLE.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCOTLAND VERSUS ENGLAND.

Which doesn't mean Scotland isn't a country.