Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[MCel58]

I decided to go back and look at the provision for referendums in the Scotland Act 2016 which received royal assent in March and it states
"In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/section/1/enacted
So it appears that in March 2016 the UK Government passed a new Scotland Act where the only people with power to abolish the existing Scottish Parliamentary arrangements are in fact the people of Scotland

 

[Architect]

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.

I disagree. In assessing what constitutes acceptable changes in circumstances one has to look at the extent to which (a) they were part of the debate around IndyRef and (b) whether there is or is likely to be a substantive impact.

That realistically leaves us with the current debate on EU and the extent to which in 2014 single market access was touted as a major reason for remaining within the UK.

The actual quote in the 2013 paper is a "once-in-a-generation opportunity to follow a different path and choose a new and better direction for our nation is lost".

Clearly 2-3 years is far from that timescale, factoring in significant changes in events is quite reasonable. By way of example, let's assume a situation where Brexit has wrought havoc and as many 6 in 10 Scots wanted independence. Nevertheless Scotland is effectively kept in the UK against its will and told there was absolutely nothing it could do about it because it is too soon after the original referendum.

That’s clearly not a democratically defensible position. You can’t tell a nation that it’s not allowed to express its wishes for 5, 10, or 20 years because of something that happened in the past and under different circumstances.

 

[Architect]

I decided to go back and look at the provision for referendums in the Scotland Act 2016 which received royal assent in March and it states
"In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/section/1/enacted
So it appears that in March 2016 the UK Government passed a new Scotland Act where the only people with power to abolish the existing Scottish Parliamentary arrangements are in fact the people of Scotland

I am not sure that this is the solid foundation that you interpret it as.

Nothing in the Scotland Act prevents the Westminster Parliament from legislating on matters which are within devolved competence: section 28(7) makes that clear. Although the UK Government has said that it "would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament" - a Sewel Motion - this is not binding.

Likewise because of the (originally English) principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, and in the absence of a formal written constitution covering such issues, it is open to Westiminster to simply repeal the Scotland Act and hence the requirement for a referendum prior to abolition.

I observe in passing that there is occassional debate as to whether this parliamentary sovereignty would permit the articles of the Act of Union to be amended unilaterally; a number of (predominantly English) commentators suggested such in passing in 2014, IIRC, however other sources (Gibson v Lord Advocate) leave open the opportunity of a differing interpretation.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I disagree. In assessing what constitutes acceptable changes in circumstances one has to look at the extent to which (a) they were part of the debate around IndyRef and (b) whether there is or is likely to be a substantive impact.

That realistically leaves us with the current debate on EU and the extent to which in 2014 single market access was touted as a major reason for remaining within the UK.

The actual quote in the 2013 paper is a "once-in-a-generation opportunity to follow a different path and choose a new and better direction for our nation is lost".

Clearly 2-3 years is far from that timescale, factoring in significant changes in events is quite reasonable. By way of example, let's assume a situation where Brexit has wrought havoc and as many 6 in 10 Scots wanted independence. Nevertheless Scotland is effectively kept in the UK against its will and told there was absolutely nothing it could do about it because it is too soon after the original referendum.

That’s clearly not a democratically defensible position. You can’t tell a nation that it’s not allowed to express its wishes for 5, 10, or 20 years because of something that happened in the past and under different circumstances.

As far as I can see this so-called promise is nothing more than either Alex Salmond's personal opinion on historical events or an oratory turn of phrase. There was no promise not to hold another referendum for any length of time and even if there had been the idea that Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon or anyone else could make that promise and be bound by it is silly, as you say.

Uninformed people seem to really think the independence movement was a personal campaign by Alex Salmond and that he speaks for the people. He isn't Scotland's Mao. He was an elected head pursuing a policy aim and trying to make his case.

A subsequent government which Salmond does not lead was elected on a pledge to possibly pursue another referendum in the event that Scotland was being taken out of the EU against its own popular vote. That was the actual promise made and that is what is being pursued.

 

[ddt]

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).

I disagree.

Those criteria from the Montevideo Conference, or from the declarative theory of statehood, are for an entity that already has declared its independence. So you should not look at how the situation is today, but ask yourself the question: if Scotland declared itself independent today, would it pass those tests tomorrow?

And, then, I think, you have to answer all four questions with "yes". Scotland already has a functioning government, and extending it to those powers reserved now to Westminster is a relative no-brainer. As to (d), Sturgeon already has been engaging in talks with foreign heads of government.

I'm not a pure declaratist, I don't think, e.g., Northern Cyprus is a sovereign state, or Nagorno-Karabakh. It depends on whether other, undoubted, sovereign states would recognize an independent Scotland, foremost the 27 EU members.

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.

Family Guy already covered that. Here is LondonJohn's pool party where he invites foreign heads of state:

 

[ddt]

Yep. Just as Catalonia is a country. Bavaria is a country. New South Wales is a country. North Dakota is a country. Sardinia is a country. Wuhan is a country. All under exactly the same defining criteria.

The word "country" is utterly unhelpful as it can mean many different things in the English language.

The prime qualifier would be that Scotland is a nation, with an own national identity, culture, language (two: Scots English and Scottish Gaelic) and traditions. That ties it with the 19th Century concept of the nation-state, which is the idea that a sovereign state should encompass a nation.

Catalonia is a nation as well, with its own language and identity, and is the only one in your series that has a strong independence movement.

 

[ddt]

As for the reference to Chancellor, I'm afraid I don't see your point. The Westiminster administration uses the term in its historic sense, meaning a senior official. The German term, which I think you are referring to, is Bundeskanzler, kanzler not being a direct cognate of the English term and inferring secretary (in the historic sense) or chairman.

Yes, they are cognate.

The English Chancellor is originally the head of the Chancery, the part of the royal bureaucracy that wrote titles, deeds and other official documents.
The German Kanzler is originally the head of the Kanzlei - you get the point.
So yes, they're cognate and the terms originate from the same meaning.

Nowadays, the German word Kanzlei is only used in the meaning of a law firm.

 

[ddt]

Oh for god's sake! This is nothing more than hysterical (and perhaps wishful-thinking?) rhetorical garbage.

The ultra-nats in this debate are continually (and again, IMO, wilfully) missing the point that it would be very unlikely indeed that the UK national government would "refuse" to allow Scotland to hold an independence referendum (and to then declare independence from the UK if there was a majority Leave), provided certain reasonable conditions were met.

Then why don't you answer Erwin's question?

Because that's the whole crux of the matter.

Clearly, Scotland satisfies the Montevideo criteria, or at least has the capacity to do so in very short order. Holyrood has the capacity to declare independence and then govern a functioning state; no-one doubts this.

What would Westminster's reaction be?
Would it be like in 1916 in Ireland?
Would it be like the Soviet Union reacted to Estonia's independence?
Or more like Czechenia?
Or would it be like Slovaka's independence?

You tell us what you think.

 

[Architect]

Yes, they are cognate.

The English Chancellor is originally the head of the Chancery, the part of the royal bureaucracy that wrote titles, deeds and other official documents.
The German Kanzler is originally the head of the Kanzlei - you get the point.
So yes, they're cognate and the terms originate from the same meaning.

Nowadays, the German word Kanzlei is only used in the meaning of a law firm.

Not quite. It's a Norman or Anglo-French late medieval term, adopted into English following their wee spot of bother and consequent effective colonisation, in turn evolving to encompass a wider role (for example University Chancellors).

My German is rusty and based primarily my first few years of school in Switzerland, however my understanding of Bundeskanzlei is that it would be interpreted in a manner more similar to First Minister (in some other countries) or Chairman/Prime Minister - i.e. as opposed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

They modern uses are therefore not cognate in the same way as (say) Athair, Father, Fater, and Vater in Gaelic, English, Low and High German respectively.

 

[ddt]

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.

But the Brexit referendum was already scheduled. So during IndyRef, while the SNP said it was committed to staying in the EU, the three Unionist parties said "only with us you stay in the EU, and this Brexit referendum is just a little joke"?

 

[ddt]

Nothing. but that doesnt mean they would necessarily be successful or that it would be quick or easy to achieve. it would also obviously mean rather hostile negotiations on shared assets. They'd Have to find somewhere to park trident for a start.

Which would be an enormous trump card for Scotland. Rest-UK does not have another place to park the Tridents for at least several years to come. In the meantime, Scotland could slap a huge parking ticket on them.

 

[Strawberry]

But the Brexit referendum was already scheduled. So during IndyRef, while the SNP said it was committed to staying in the EU, the three Unionist parties said "only with us you stay in the EU, and this Brexit referendum is just a little joke"?

No it wasn't. The Tories promised a Brexit referendum in their manifesto for the 2015 general election, but nobody could have predicted back in September 2014 that the Tories would win an outright majority in May of 2015.

In fact even late on the night of the general election, after the polls had closed, nobody was expecting a Tory majority. Paddy Ashdown was promising to eat his underwear on national television if a Tory government was elected, so sure was he that the coalition would be re-elected. And while I'm on the subject, Ashdown never kept his promise either!

 

[Architect]

I'm not a pure declaratist, I don't think, e.g., Northern Cyprus is a sovereign state, or Nagorno-Karabakh. It depends on whether other, undoubted, sovereign states would recognize an independent Scotland, foremost the 27 EU members.

Northern Cyprus is, however, an interesting case.

There was undoubtedly an identifiable Turkish population on the island prior to partition, although the areas of inhabitation did not necessarily reflect the current effective border, however the principal objection to recognition is that the "state" arose only out of illegal military action.

In that sense one might also make reference to the Hallstein Doctrine regarding recognition of the former East Germany, which rather foundered on the hard rocks of Realpolitik.

 

[ddt]

Not quite. It's a Norman or Anglo-French late medieval term, adopted into English following their wee spot of bother and consequent effective colonisation, in turn evolving to encompass a wider role (for example University Chancellors).

My German is rusty and based primarily my first few years of school in Switzerland, however my understanding of Bundeskanzlei is that it would be interpreted in a manner more similar to First Minister (in some other countries) or Chairman/Prime Minister - i.e. as opposed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

They modern uses are therefore not cognate in the same way as (say) Athair, Father, Fater, and Vater in Gaelic, English, Low and High German respectively.

Then I think you're confused about the word "cognate". Cognate means that the words have the same syntactic origin in an (ancestral) language. Both words come from the Latin "cancelli", and in the Middle Ages denoted the writing office (resp. its head) of a monarch. Now, indeed, the functions have different meanings, after 1000+ years of semantic shift. Yes, indeed, the German Kanzler (Bundeskanzler, Reichskanzler) nowadays means a PM. A law firm in German is a Kanzlei (or Anwaltskanzlei), a single lawyer an Anwalt.

There are plenty of cognates between German and English, and a sizable number with semantic shift. German "Tisch" still has the original meaning table, but English "dish" means a meal. German "sterben" just means to die, of any cause, while English "starve" mostly specifically means to die of lack of food (or just to be very hungry).

 

[Architect]

But the Brexit referendum was already scheduled. So during IndyRef, while the SNP said it was committed to staying in the EU, the three Unionist parties said "only with us you stay in the EU, and this Brexit referendum is just a little joke"?

I'm afraid that's innacurate.

James Wharton MP sought to introduce a bill committing to an in/out referendum as far back as July 2013, whilst Cameron made frequent reference to negotiating better terms of membership. Bill Neil's bill (no pun intended) did not, however, receive its first reading until late October 2014 - after IndyRef - and I think we would all agree that the eventual 2016 exit vote was a surprise to most people.

During this time opinion polls indicated that the UK electorate supported continuing membership of the EU. It was not until June/July 2015 that opinion polls in England and Wales indicated a finer balance - a full year after the Scottish result.

In fact those of us at the receiving end of the media during Indyref all know that the Scottish Conservatives, for example, made great play of the exonomic impact of expulsion from the EU - temporary or otherwise - of Scotland if it were to become independent and the reasonable inferrence was that remaining within the UK was likely to also mean remaining within the EU.

 

[ddt]

No it wasn't.

I'm afraid that's innacurate.

Thank you both for correcting me. The timelines of both referenda overlap and can be quite confusing.

In fact those of us at the receiving end of the media during Indyref all know that the Scottish Conservatives, for example, made great play of the exonomic impact of expulsion from the EU - temporary or otherwise - of Scotland if it were to become independent and the reasonable inferrence was that remaining within the UK was likely to also mean remaining within the EU.

So they're now supporters of Indyref 2?

 

[LondonJohn]

Then why don't you answer Erwin's question?

Because that's the whole crux of the matter.

Clearly, Scotland satisfies the Montevideo criteria, or at least has the capacity to do so in very short order. Holyrood has the capacity to declare independence and then govern a functioning state; no-one doubts this.

What would Westminster's reaction be?
Would it be like in 1916 in Ireland?
Would it be like the Soviet Union reacted to Estonia's independence?
Or more like Czechenia?
Or would it be like Slovaka's independence?

You tell us what you think.

I already answered that question. My answer is that the question is moot, because the Scottish government is not so stupid nor so lacking in basic pragmatic reasoning as to seek to secede without the full cooperation and assent of the UK government. The UK government in 2016 is fundamentally reasonable, and will - perhaps with certain reasonable preconditions - readily assent to a further referendum and possible consequent independence if they are confident there is sufficient call for it in Scotland.

As I've said a few times now, I doubt the UK Government will assent to a referendum in advance of Brexit negotiations concluding, for the very good and sensible reason that since the EU situation is obviously the game-changer since the 2014 referendum, it only makes sense to wait for the reaction to the UK's new position in Europe before making any moves. The Scottish government would be crazy to reject or even resist such a condition, and they will not (IMO) reject or resist it.

So outside the "whys and wherefores", there is, in practice, zero chance that a confrontational, adversarial situation will ever arise where both UK and Scottish governments dig their heels in and raise the stakes to UDI levels. It's simply not in either side's best interests, and it's also entirely at odds with events to date: the 2014 referendum evolved from a negotiation resulting in the UK government granting assent for the referendum, and the current noises from Holyrood indicate that the same sort of negotiation is the way forward for a future referendum. I realise fully that some people appear to entertain a real appetite for conflict here, to the extent that they relish the thought of the "evil" English UK government disgustingly denying the brave Scottish people their God-given right to self-determination, and the mighty Scots seizing the day and proudly declaring independence against the will of the Evil Empire. But that's all strange and never-going-to-happen fantasy.

By all means, continue to pose needlessly provocative conundrums if you so desire. But nothing like that will ever happen. One might as well ask a question such as: if the UK parliament went loopy and voted to take the UK into war against France, what action would the UN take against the UK (Would it send bombers in to the UK? Would it order an invasion of the UK?)? It ain't going to happen. And similarly, the Scottish and UK parliaments failing to conduct a reasonable negotiation on a further referendum/independence, to the point where the Scottish government defies the UK government and holds a referendum anyhow (let alone declares independence without UK govt assent), simply ain't going to happen either. Ever.

 

[LondonJohn]

Scotland already has a functioning government, and extending it to those powers reserved now to Westminster is a relative no-brainer.

Dangerous ground. One could make precisely the same underlying argument to any administrative region of the UK, provided one blithely employed the same "extending it to those powers reserved now to Westminster is a relative no-brainer" technique. Watch:

Northamptonshire County already has a functioning (local) government (in Northamptonshire County Council), and and extending it to those powers reserved now to Westminster is a relative no-brainer.

So using this neat "no-brainer" technique, the county of Northampton would pass the nation test if it declared independence, seized all the powers it doesn't currently have from the Westminster government, and started talking with other nations. It has exactly as permanent a population as Scotland, it certainly has a defined territory, it has a system of government in place (which could, as per your reasoning, easily expand to include all the powers currently held by Westminster) and it could easily start having meetings with foreign powers.

Family Guy already covered that. Here is LondonJohn's pool party where he invites foreign heads of state:

Very good. Presumably you're unfamiliar with the rhetorical device of reductio ad absurdum. It's a technique which uses a deliberately extreme and fanciful application of a certain argument to show how absurd that argument is in its underlying form. Like this:

Person A: You can drive at literally whatever speed you like on a German Autobahn!

Person B (using reductio ad absurdum): So I could drive a rocket-powered car at 400mph down the German Autobahn without risking action against me, could I?

You're welcome

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I already answered that question. My answer is that the question is moot, because the Scottish government is not so stupid nor so lacking in basic pragmatic reasoning as to seek to secede without the full cooperation and assent of the UK government. The UK government in 2016 is fundamentally reasonable, and will - perhaps with certain reasonable preconditions - readily assent to a further referendum and possible consequent independence if they are confident there is sufficient call for it in Scotland.

As I've said a few times now, I doubt the UK Government will assent to a referendum in advance of Brexit negotiations concluding, for the very good and sensible reason that since the EU situation is obviously the game-changer since the 2014 referendum, it only makes sense to wait for the reaction to the UK's new position in Europe before making any moves. The Scottish government would be crazy to reject or even resist such a condition, and they will not (IMO) reject or resist it.

So outside the "whys and wherefores", there is, in practice, zero chance that a confrontational, adversarial situation will ever arise where both UK and Scottish governments dig their heels in and raise the stakes to UDI levels. It's simply not in either side's best interests, and it's also entirely at odds with events to date: the 2014 referendum evolved from a negotiation resulting in the UK government granting assent for the referendum, and the current noises from Holyrood indicate that the same sort of negotiation is the way forward for a future referendum. I realise fully that some people appear to entertain a real appetite for conflict here, to the extent that they relish the thought of the "evil" English UK government disgustingly denying the brave Scottish people their God-given right to self-determination, and the mighty Scots seizing the day and proudly declaring independence against the will of the Evil Empire. But that's all strange and never-going-to-happen fantasy.

By all means, continue to pose needlessly provocative conundrums if you so desire. But nothing like that will ever happen. One might as well ask a question such as: if the UK parliament went loopy and voted to take the UK into war against France, what action would the UN take against the UK (Would it send bombers in to the UK? Would it order an invasion of the UK?)? It ain't going to happen. And similarly, the Scottish and UK parliaments failing to conduct a reasonable negotiation on a further referendum/independence, to the point where the Scottish government defies the UK government and holds a referendum anyhow (let alone declares independence without UK govt assent), simply ain't going to happen either. Ever.

Good to see that youve backed away from the silly claim they couldnt and now go for wouldnt. its good to see someone change their mind when their misunderstandings are pointed out. Kudos for that at least.

 

[Craig B]

... the Scottish government is not so stupid nor so lacking in basic pragmatic reasoning as to seek to secede without the full cooperation and assent of the UK government ... <snip> ... But nothing like that will ever happen. One might as well ask a question such as: if the UK parliament went loopy and voted to take the UK into war against France, what action would the UN take against the UK ... It ain't going to happen. And similarly, the Scottish and UK parliaments failing to conduct a reasonable negotiation on a further referendum/independence, to the point where the Scottish government defies the UK government and holds a referendum anyhow (let alone declares independence without UK govt assent), simply ain't going to happen either. Ever.

This is so bizarre that it must be motivated by an irresistible desire to keep stating and repeating endlessly, in the most frenzied terms, the sovereignty of the UK over Scotland, and the Scots' subservient submissiveness to this order of things.

The source of these utterances is not to be found by a rational analysis of the current political situation in the UK, because that can hardly be compared with anything as phantasmical as a hypothetical declaration of war by the UK on France. Is this weird idea a Brexiter wish-fulfilment fantasy?