Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

Craig B said:
We're getting that experience of being a nice cheap place already, thanks to the Brexit slump in the value of the once-mighty Pound against the Euro.
Click to expand...


Yeah - perhaps if, of those 1 million Scottish people who voted to leave the EU, some more of them, alongside some of the additional 15.2 million in England, 350K in NI and 855K in Wales who voted to leave (giving an overall UK majority for Leave), had voted Remain, then we might still be in the EU.......
 
Craig B said:
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:

Ah, if only! But "foolish notions" are often very deeply entrenched.
Click to expand...


Ain't they just!!

(And yes, I understood the meaning of the quote without needing to see more of the poem. I am familiar with, and like, Burns and his poetry. Unlike that English scum Shakespeare......)
 
Indyref1 contains a little noted exception, that there be no material change in the status quo.

Brexit is surely an enormous material change in the status quo.

That alone is surely grounds for Indyref2, no?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Im pretty sure manifestos are not legally binding. My source for this is every government ever.

I think before we start ecploring more drastic options we should definitely give the referendum thing achance. Westminster haven't said they won't accept the result.let's not create unnecessary problems yet.
Click to expand...

You are partially right and partially wrong. Manifestos become the body of the legislative programme and are placed into a binding resolution on a parliament by the Queens speech in all the legislative parliaments and assemblies in the U.K. This is why the Queen has a role in all 4.
This also becomes the basis by which the civil service decides whether they are being asked to do something that might be considered ultra vires. So the bits of manifestos that make it into the legislative programme do indeed become legally binding.
The Tories have used theirs to good efffect in the past by hiding little gems like the poll tax, NHS cuts and hospital closures, commitment to Trident, Trade Union reform all within the manifestos, benefit reforms, EU referendums, cutting immigration to less than 100000 with the appropriate amount of spin etc and then subsequently in the Queens Speech giving even their most outrageous policies parliamentary authority and committing the Civil service to developing the legal and policy framework.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hahaha :D

In a bizarro-world where the statement:

"It's a fact under UK constitutional law, supported by international law, that a further referendum for Scottish independence and any consequent route to independence require the prior assent of the UK government (and the UK government may very well be minded to grant that assent if certain reasonable conditions are met)"

gets re-worked into the following statement (which is then the basis of a straw man "response"):

"You damned Scottish don't know what's good for you! We imperialist UK-ers English will tell you what's good for you, and you will shut up and take it! If we say no independence for you, it's no independence for you! Eat that, Scottish idiots! Mwahahahahahahahaha!"

.... there's really zero hope for any type of constructive debate. History will show if, how and when there is a further Scottish independence referendum. I think one will probably happen. And I know with virtual certainty that it will happen following a joint declaration of the UK and Scottish government, after a period of negotiations and condition-setting. I also know with even greater certainty that the Scottish government will never either call a referendum nor declare independence for Scotland without having first conducted this sort of successful negotiation with the UK government.

I suspect that only the real passage of events will be sufficient to persuade most of the zealous pro-indy commentators on this thread how it actually works, and what the political/legal/constitutional reality of the situation actually is. Even then, however, that might not be enough. Never mind.
Click to expand...

You may be right but you are not basing this on the difference of the Scottish character and the Scottish politic. Whilst the U.K. Government is willing to go along a referendum route then all will be as you describe but the minute there is resistance from a U.K. Government or anyone else, you will see a change both in the rhetoric and in the activity of both politicians and more importantly Scottish communities. in fact the very suggestion that they would not be able to negotiate a path to self determination causes the types of reactions you have seen here. I suspect that none of the respondents are ultra nationalists but they are Scots first and everything else after.
 
MCel58 said:
You are partially right and partially wrong. Manifestos become the body of the legislative programme and are placed into a binding resolution on a parliament by the Queens speech in all the legislative parliaments and assemblies in the U.K. This is why the Queen has a role in all 4.
This also becomes the basis by which the civil service decides whether they are being asked to do something that might be considered ultra vires. So the bits of manifestos that make it into the legislative programme do indeed become legally binding.
The Tories have used theirs to good efffect in the past by hiding little gems like the poll tax, NHS cuts and hospital closures, commitment to Trident, Trade Union reform all within the manifestos, benefit reforms, EU referendums, cutting immigration to less than 100000 with the appropriate amount of spin etc and then subsequently in the Queens Speech giving even their most outrageous policies parliamentary authority and committing the Civil service to developing the legal and policy framework.
Click to expand...
The civil service work with their respective ministerial colleagues on an agenda set by the Minister. Whether that is in a manifesto, Queens speech or not is immaterial.
Similarly whether a measure is ultra viries is nothing to do with public announcements.

Often civil servants will have spent months working on measures before they hit the Queens Speech.
 
Lothian said:
No.
Click to expand...

The grounds for any indyref 2 3 4 or 102 will be that the Scottish Government has voted for it after being democratically elected.

Its only right we see a vote before Scotland is pulled out of the EU. Thats a huge change in the rights and status of scots being imposed by westminster against its will.

If that doesnt justify a vote in your mind then nothing will.
 
MCel58 said:
You may be right but you are not basing this on the difference of the Scottish character and the Scottish politic. Whilst the U.K. Government is willing to go along a referendum route then all will be as you describe but the minute there is resistance from a U.K. Government or anyone else, you will see a change both in the rhetoric and in the activity of both politicians and more importantly Scottish communities. in fact the very suggestion that they would not be able to negotiate a path to self determination causes the types of reactions you have seen here. I suspect that none of the respondents are ultra nationalists but they are Scots first and everything else after.
Click to expand...

The amusing thing is that the ultra nats on this thread are all of a red white and blue hue insisting that the uk parliament trumps everything else and that international law will support a serbian like claim over territory that wants to secede. apparently being so far gone makes you reasonable. the same kind of reasonable that wants to leave the eu to stop Syrian refugees coming to the uk or so we can bring back bendy bananas no doubt.

With great logic like if the snp choose the easier route to independence it will prove they couldnt do it any other more difficult way you know what you are up against.

The same logic was used in the Herald newspaper in claiming that the snps legislation seeks tovget permission from westminster for an indyref thereforr PROVING that they need that permission. sadly people believe this guff.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The grounds for any indyref 2 3 4 or 102 will be that the Scottish Government has voted for it after being democratically elected.

Its only right we see a vote before Scotland is pulled out of the EU. Thats a huge change in the rights and status of scots being imposed by westminster against its will.

If that doesnt justify a vote in your mind then nothing will.
Click to expand...
The indyref promise was there would be no major change in the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The fact that the whole of the UK including Scotland decided to change its relationship with the EU does not affect the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
 
With respect I think that is an oversimplification.

As I pointed out above, replying to your own post, a major plank of the unionist campaign during IndyRef was access to the EU and the financial implications of loss of access to the single market. There was no indication of substantive English support for Brexit until after IndyRef, and certainly no bills progressing through Westminster with a realistic chance of success.

Had Scotland voted with much of the rest of the UK and indicated that it wished to come out then your suggestion would be reasonable, but of course that is not the case and there is thus a valid question to be asked regarding the matter - one which is most sensibly put to the Scottish electorate.

Now I have to say that I'm not sure whether there will be much difference to the previous figures; IndyRef is not the talk of the steamie at present, presumably as we're all rather more worried about whether Brexit tanks the economy in the way that we anticipate. I speculate as to whether this is the reason for the cautious approach voiced by the First Minister and Holyrood administration, but can pretend to no inside knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
The indyref promise was there would be no major change in the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The fact that the whole of the UK including Scotland decided to change its relationship with the EU does not affect the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't change it. It changes the status and rights of the Scottish people and therefore it's a damn good reason to consider whether we want to remain part of the entity that is forcing us down that route should all other options prove unworkable.

What would change the relationship between Scotland and the rUK would be a majority vote for independence in a referendum but if you don't hold a referendum you obviously won't get that.

The process for a referendum is that the Scottish people elect a government with a view on it, the government then votes to decide whether to have one. There is no external value judgement by any individual on whether they think it's merited or not or whether they think the result will go one way or another that matters to that process.

If you are confident that the people of Scotland continue to wish to remain in the UK outside the EU then hold the vote, prove your point and get on with it. There's no need to stretch things out longer than it takes to organise a vote.
 
Architect said:
With respect I think that is an oversimplification.

As I pointed out above, replying to your own post, a major plank of the unionist campaign during IndyRef was access to the EU and the financial implications of loss of access to the single market. There was no indication of substantive English support for Brexit until after IndyRef, and certainly no bills progressing through Westminster with a realistic chance of success.

Had Scotland voted with much of the rest of the UK and indicated that it wished to come out then your suggestion would be reasonable, but of course that is not the case and there is thus a valid question to be asked regarding the matter - one which is most sensibly put to the Scottish electorate.

Now I have to say that I'm not sure whether there will be much difference to the previous figures; IndyRef is not the talk of the steamie at present, presumably as we're all rather more worried about whether Brexit tanks the economy in the way that we anticipate. I speculate as to whether this is the reason for the cautious approach voiced by the First Minister and Holyrood administration, but can pretend to no inside knowledge.
Click to expand...

I think this is more or less where I am too.

Brexit creates a rock/hard place for Scotland so its a fine tactical balance for the SNP. If they hold Indyref 2 now and get a No then I think that is game over for quite some time on the other hand the longer they wait the harder things become from a staying in the EU perspective.

I think this is why Nicola is hoping the UK come up with a Plan C but I can't see how anything is likely in that regard - not only because it's difficult/impossible to imagine a workable plan that keeps Scotland in the EU and the UK but also because Westminster can't even come up with a Plan A.

Perhaps she is waiting for May unveil the full horror of Project Bumclownery when they finally concoct it or to be stupid enough to try to stop Scotland declaring independence or just to somehow show her hand in not giving the slightest monkey's about Scotland other than keeping it in the UK.

On the other hand the SNP have some tough questions to answer on the economy, on borders between Scotland and England, on currency etc etc that need to be revisited in the light of a rUK outside the EU. My sense is that those practical concerns will scupper the vote for many as on a daily basis Scotland is more closely intertwined with England than with Europe. I'm not sure the righteous indignation vote would swing sufficiently against that.

My best bet is 60/40 to remain right now.
 
abaddon said:
Indyref1 contains a little noted exception, that there be no material change in the status quo.

Brexit is surely an enormous material change in the status quo.

That alone is surely grounds for Indyref2, no?
Click to expand...
That depends; to Union supporters, no. Nothing would support a second referendum.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
No, it doesn't change it. It changes the status and rights of the Scottish people and therefore it's a damn good reason to consider whether we want to remain part of the entity that is forcing us down that route should all other options prove unworkable.

What would change the relationship between Scotland and the rUK would be a majority vote for independence in a referendum but if you don't hold a referendum you obviously won't get that.

The process for a referendum is that the Scottish people elect a government with a view on it, the government then votes to decide whether to have one. There is no external value judgement by any individual on whether they think it's merited or not or whether they think the result will go one way or another that matters to that process.

If you are confident that the people of Scotland continue to wish to remain in the UK outside the EU then hold the vote, prove your point and get on with it. There's no need to stretch things out longer than it takes to organise a vote.
Click to expand...
My point is thst Brexit is an excuse. What you say above could apply to a Trump Government or a Canada EU trade deal or anything that alters the Uk's relationship with the world.

Perhaps the SNP could have been clearer with their once in a lifetime promise.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
My point is thst Brexit is an excuse. What you say above could apply to a Trump Government or a Canada EU trade deal or anything that alters the Uk's relationship with the world.
Click to expand...

No, Trump being elected nor any Canada EU trade deal does not impact on the status or rights of any Scots.

To provide other examples I don't think for example that the UK gov deciding to implement a 90% tax rate for high earners would be justification for an Indyref but if they decided that say Catholics should not have the right to vote then it might well be.

Leaving the EU removes Scots EU citizenship. It removes a number of protections. It removes their right to travel, live and work in a number of countries. This is an important change in status. One which is opposed by Scotland, her people and her government.

The Scottish Government would not be doing their job if they simply held their hands up and said 'oh well, nothing can be done. England and Wales voted that way so we have to accept it' In the absence of a Plan C it's their responsibility to put forward another referendum so that we can be clear once and for all on the matter and can have no further complaints about being forced out of the EU.

I think that's what people miss. If the vote goes against independence then it ends any debate on Scotland's status in the EU and provides no way for anyone to claim that we are being held against our wishes.

Perhaps the SNP could have been clearer with their once in a lifetime promise.
Click to expand...

What 'promise' are you referring to? The only promise I am aware of related to Indyref was the infamous 'Vow' which I don't think even lasted until the last votes were counted in the referendum before being dismantled by Westminster's Unionist cabal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom