Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Jesus. Yes, the people of England, Wales and NI do (and should) have a say in the future of Scotland. How can you possibly not understand that by now?

Jesus. No they don't and they shouldn't. And you repeatedly saying it doesn't make it any truer than when you started saying it.

If you deny the truth of this then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE encourage your Tory pals to state what you believe as a fact. They continually refuse to do so because they know what will happen if they do. But if it's as clear cut as you believe then it should be incredibly easy for May to state tomorrow morning that the UK government will not grant a referendum and will ignore the democratically expressed will of the people if they hold one without consent.

Seriously. Try it. It would genuinely make my day.

 

[LondonJohn]

Did you seriously just accuse me of overstepping the mark then post that? English describes a person from England. It is not synonymous with a citizen of the UK. If you think it is perhaps you need to stop and think about your bigotry and jingoism rather than insulting others with pathetic stereotypes like these?

Holy smoke, are you really failing to comprehend this badly. I was not attempting to equate "English person" with "citizen of the UK" (sheesh!!) Read what I wrote again. Here is what I was actually saying: you should not be thinking about it in terms of "the English" or "people from England". You should exclusively and solely be thinking about it in terms of "citizens of the UK". Whether those citizens are from the region of England, the region of Wales, the region of NI, or the region of Scotland.

Try the business merger analogy again - it might aid your comprehension. Remember, A and B merged in 2005 to form The United AB company. The former A and B are now nothing more than business units of The United AB Company.

To extend the analogy to your current misuse of terms, imagine again that the local management board of the B business unit (with the consent of the employees of the B business unit) would like to become independent of The United AB Company. Your misuse of terms is talking about "the board of A" or employees of A" being on the other side of the position of the local board and employees of B. But you should be talking about "the board of The United AB Company" and "employees of The United AB Company" - a set which, incidentally, also included the local board and employees of B. Everyone who is a direct stakeholder in The United AB Company (chiefly shareholders and employees) has a stake in what happens to the company (including whether or not B is allowed to spin off from the company), and the will of the stakeholders in The United AB Company is empowered and exercised through the executive board of The United AB Company (which happens to convene on the premises of the A business unit factory, by the way......).

Every person who is a citizen of the UK, is, in effect, a shareholder in UK plc. And we, the shareholders of UK plc, have elected an executive board (in the form of a national parliament and a national government made up from the parliamentary party with the majority) to represent our interests. If one business unit of UK plc wants to demerge and become independent, then the shareholders of UK plc have the absolute and fundamental right - via their elected board - to decide whether such a demerger would be in the best interests of UK plc.

Does this perhaps make things even a little clearer? Somehow I suspect not.............

 

[LondonJohn]

Jesus. No they don't and they shouldn't. And you repeatedly saying it doesn't make it any truer than when you started saying it.

If you deny the truth of this then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE encourage your Tory pals to state what you believe as a fact. They continually refuse to do so because they know what will happen if they do. But if it's as clear cut as you believe then it should be incredibly easy for May to state tomorrow morning that the UK government will not grant a referendum and will ignore the democratically expressed will of the people if they hold one without consent.

Seriously. Try it. It would genuinely make my day.

"My Tory pals"?

My my, the naked and unpleasant bigotry of nationalism really is starting to show through now, isn't it?

Time to fire up the bagpipes and shout of sending proud Edward's army homeward to think again....?

I don't think you'll ever understand the factual reality of the situation here. Perhaps because you don't want to. Perhaps for other reasons. I don't really know or care why not. But good luck with it all anyhow! Get them bagpipes going! And.....kilts up, warriors! Make a nation proud again!!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Holy smoke, are you really failing to comprehend this badly. I was not attempting to equate "English person" with "citizen of the UK" (sheesh!!) Read what I wrote again. Here is what I was actually saying: you should not be thinking about it in terms of "the English" or "people from England". You should exclusively and solely be thinking about it in terms of "citizens of the UK". Whether those citizens are from the region of England, the region of Wales, the region of NI, or the region of Scotland.

Try the business merger analogy again - it might aid your comprehension. Remember, A and B merged in 2005 to form The United AB company. The former A and B are now nothing more than business units of The United AB Company.

To extend the analogy to your current misuse of terms, imagine again that the local management board of the B business unit (with the consent of the employees of the B business unit) would like to become independent of The United AB Company. Your misuse of terms is talking about "the board of A" or employees of A" being on the other side of the position of the local board and employees of B. But you should be talking about "the board of The United AB Company" and "employees of The United AB Company" - a set which, incidentally, also included the local board and employees of B. Everyone who is a direct stakeholder in The United AB Company (chiefly shareholders and employees) has a stake in what happens to the company (including whether or not B is allowed to spin off from the company), and the will of the stakeholders in The United AB Company is empowered and exercised through the executive board of The United AB Company (which happens to convene on the premises of the A business unit factory, by the way......).

Every person who is a citizen of the UK, is, in effect, a shareholder in UK plc. And we, the shareholders of UK plc, have elected an executive board (in the form of a national parliament and a national government made up from the parliamentary party with the majority) to represent our interests. If one business unit of UK plc wants to demerge and become independent, then the shareholders of UK plc have the absolute and fundamental right - via their elected board - to decide whether such a demerger would be in the best interests of UK plc.

Does this perhaps make things even a little clearer? Somehow I suspect not.............

Funnily enough no it doesn't. The post of mine you quoted and objected to contained the term 'English' once. To refer to a person in England. For a reason. To use 'citizen of the UK' would have changed the meaning of the sentence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and in passing, you also seem ignorant of the fact that it is the UK parliament that will or will not grant a referendum (with associated pledge to honour its outcome). Not "Tory May". You know the UK parliament? That would be the body that democratically represents the will of the ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UK - yes, even including Scotland - in a fair, proportionate manner.

And why do you also appear to think that the UK parliament will not legislate for another Scottish independence referendum? It's far from unlikely that the UK parliament will, sooner or later, enact just such legislation. If that's what happens, that will be a representation of the will of the entire UK population (since that's how representative democracy works in a sovereign nation). We trust our elected national parliamentarians to represent our best interests - we elect them, and then presume that they are wise enough and well-enough informed to make collective decisions on our behalf that are in our best interest. If the UK parliament thinks its in our best interest to legislate for another Scottish independence referendum and honour its outcome, then that should be fine by every single citizen of the UK. But if the UK parliament decides it is not in the best interests of the UK to enact such legislation, than that should be fine to - to all citizens of the UK, including you-know-where............

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

"My Tory pals"?

My my, the naked and unpleasant bigotry of nationalism really is starting to show through now, isn't it?

Time to fire up the bagpipes and shout of sending proud Edward's army homeward to think again....?

I don't think you'll ever understand the factual reality of the situation here. Perhaps because you don't want to. Perhaps for other reasons. I don't really know or care why not. But good luck with it all anyhow! Get them bagpipes going! And.....kilts up, warriors! Make a nation proud again!!

Nothing said to you has been in the least bit bigoted unlike your responses. And you know this. I think your Union Jack underpants must be on too tight.

Actually, you go way beyond anything your Tory pals say as even Maggie Thatcher acknowledged Scotland's right to independence if they want it. So di d Major. So did Cameron. So has every UK government up to this one.

You may want to consider whether arguing against your own beloved Westminster government about its own view on its own constitution is rather odd. Especially when you seem to be attempting to support it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Funnily enough no it doesn't. The post of mine you quoted and objected to contained the term 'English' once. To refer to a person in England. For a reason. To use 'citizen of the UK' would have changed the meaning of the sentence.

As indeed it should have changed the meaning of your sentence. This is not about whether a citizen of the UK lives in England, Wales, NI or Scotland. It's solely about the fact that the person is a citizen of the UK. Full stop.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nothing said to you has been in the least bit bigoted unlike your responses. And you know this. I think your Union Jack underpants must be on too tight.

Actually, you go way beyond anything your Tory pals say as even Maggie Thatcher acknowledged Scotland's right to independence if they want it. So di d Major. So did Cameron. So has every UK government up to this one.

You may want to consider whether arguing against your own beloved Westminster government about its own view on its own constitution is rather odd. Especially when you seem to be attempting to support it.

I'll just leave those highlighted juxtaposed pieces there

(You do know what "bigoted" means, don't you.....?)

(And you do know that the Westminster government is your government exactly as much as it is mine, don't you? Or have you forgotten that in all the fervour?)

 

[Darat]

Yep.

As a citizen of the UK, Scotland is not your country. None of your business.

Just as its none of my business what happens in the Welsh assembly and if England ever get a Parliament none of my business what happens there either.

How very strange, Scotland is part of my country I. E. The UK, you may not like that but it is the case. And again whether you believe it to be so or not what happens in Perth is my business just like what happens in Mold or Northampton.

 

[Craig B]

Every person who is a citizen of the UK, is, in effect, a shareholder in UK plc. And we, the shareholders of UK plc, have elected an executive board (in the form of a national parliament and a national government made up from the parliamentary party with the majority) to represent our interests. If one business unit of UK plc wants to demerge and become independent, then the shareholders of UK plc have the absolute and fundamental right - via their elected board - to decide whether such a demerger would be in the best interests of UK plc.

Does this perhaps make things even a little clearer? Somehow I suspect not.............

Your suspicions are only too well founded. If the UK is a PLC I want to dispose of my shares. I will no longer be a shareholder, and won't receive any dividends when these are paid. I will no longer have a right to vote in the election of the executive board.

I am aware that I will, when I dispose of my shares, lose these rights and privileges, but nonetheless I want to cease to be a shareholder. You are telling me I need the consent of the other shareholders?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As indeed it should have changed the meaning of your sentence. This is not about whether a citizen of the UK lives in England, Wales, NI or Scotland. It's solely about the fact that the person is a citizen of the UK. Full stop.

And yet in the post it was in response to you explicitly mentioned Scottish people and not citizens of the UK. You're at the wind-up.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'll just leave those highlighted juxtaposed pieces there

(You do know what "bigoted" means, don't you.....?)

Hmm would an example be cheap racial epithets about Braveheart,Flower of Scotland and kilts?

(And you do know that the Westminster government is your government exactly as much as it is mine, don't you? Or have you forgotten that in all the fervour?)

It's my government. Its only you for whom it is beloved.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How very strange, Scotland is part of my country I. E. The UK, you may not like that but it is the case. And again whether you believe it to be so or not what happens in Perth is my business just like what happens in Mold or Northampton.

It's nice that you feel that way but as has been repeatedly said by everyone including Maggie herself it's a decision for the people of Scotland whether they continue to stay in the Union or not. Just as it is your wife's decision to stay married to you or not.

The only thing you can do is work on your side of the deal and make it an arrangement that is of sufficient mutual benefit that both parties continue to want to be part of it.

 

[Lothian]

As I understand it the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England are reserved matters under para 1(b) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That means that the devolved parliament in Scotland does not have the power to break up the union just as it does not have the power to decide that the Queen would no longer be the head of state.

The referendum was allowed by The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5)e Order 2013 but by my reading that simply allowed a referendum. The actual splitting of the union would have required another bill to be agreed by the UK parliament.

Happy to be corrected with a link to the law allowing Scotland to unilaterally leave with no say in matters by the UK parliament.

 

[Giz]

And the area that later became the Republic of Ireland? What was it? A mere part of a "Region".

Algeria was in international law a group of départements of the French Republic ... until 1962. But in these cases the respective Empires failed to appreciate that constitutional change was inevitable, with unpleasant consequences. However, we may confidently expect better sense from the UK government nowadays

Are the SNP threatening violent uprisings if they don't get their way?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As I understand it the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England are reserved matters under para 1(b) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That means that the devolved parliament in Scotland does not have the power to break up the union just as it does not have the power to decide that the Queen would no longer be the head of state.

The referendum was allowed by The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5)e Order 2013 but by my reading that simply allowed a referendum. The actual splitting of the union would have required another bill to be agreed by the UK parliament.

Happy to be corrected with a link to the law allowing Scotland to unilaterally leave with no say in matters by the UK parliament.

I believe everything you say here is more or less correct.

The Scottish Government does not have devolved powers related to the constitution. So there is no easy way for Holyrood to force Westminster to do anything. There may be other ways to crack that nut but since they've never been tried it's mere opinion on whether they are legally correct or not.

However, ultimately the future of Scotland lies with the people of Scotland and should the majority express a democratic will to end the Union it will be impossible to prevent that. This has been universally acknowledged by the UK Government for as long as it's even been a question.

 

[Darat]

Your suspicions are only too well founded. If the UK is a PLC I want to dispose of my shares. I will no longer be a shareholder, and won't receive any dividends when these are paid. I will no longer have a right to vote in the election of the executive board.

I am aware that I will, when I dispose of my shares, lose these rights and privileges, but nonetheless I want to cease to be a shareholder. You are telling me I need the consent of the other shareholders?

Of course you don't, just give your shares up.

Or to take it out of the analogy no one is forcing you to keep your UK citizenship, just find a country that is willing to accept you as a new citizen/shareholder.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Are the SNP threatening violent uprisings if they don't get their way?

The SNP aren't the Scottish people nor even the entire Scottish independence movement. In decades of campaigning there has been not even an inkling of resorting to violence.

If the position of the UK government echoed posters here and they genuinely believed they could keep Scotland in the Union against its will then you wonder what democratic options would be left to deal with a government who deny democracy.

I don't believe the UK Government hold as ludicrous views as some posters on this thread however.

 

[Darat]

It's nice that you feel that way but as has been repeatedly said by everyone including Maggie herself it's a decision for the people of Scotland whether they continue to stay in the Union or not. Just as it is your wife's decision to stay married to you or not.

The only thing you can do is work on your side of the deal and make it an arrangement that is of sufficient mutual benefit that both parties continue to want to be part of it.

And you have now twice been given the opportunity to decided to leave. As NS said the last one was a once in a generation chance. Try again in 20 years perhaps?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Of course you don't, just give your shares up.

Or to take it out of the analogy no one is forcing you to keep your UK citizenship, just find a country that is willing to accept you as a new citizen/shareholder.

That's exactly what independence supporting people are doing. Except they are looking at setting up their own business.

Just for the record this entire analogy is a rubbish one. Countries are not businesses.