Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

You could try but I think you might struggle to make the case that it has its own government and possibly even its own permanent population given the numbers who probably commute in and out on a daily basis. It certainly doesn't have it's own distinct legal system, it's own distinct education system, etc.

So by any sensible test Scotland is certainly more a country than Northamptonshire.

Of course the better question is if Northamptonshire DID want to split away from England and this movement had been growing in significance and popularity for decades and the people elected a government that did want to pursue to policy and the government voted to pursue the policy why on Earth would anyone insist that they can't or shouldn't be allowed to?

But like all other ridiculous comparisons the basic fundamental problem is that none of these other entities (with but a couple of important distinctions) have any inclination to pursue that goal because they aren't distinct nations, they aren't significantly different, they are particularly culturally distinct, they are absolutely in every single way part of their parent state.

If any UK-ultra-nat wants to absolutely oppose the right of 'parts of countries' to pursue a separate future from the majority then there is a rather obvious elephant in that room and I look forward to them proposing when exactly they plan to hand Northern Ireland back?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

No, no. You've created yet another straw man with respect to my position. My position is still, and has always been, that Scotland couldn't hold a referendum nor declare independence without the assent of the UK government to both. But that's "couldn't" in respect of UK law. You still seem unable to grasp that entities (or individuals) can do things that are against the law if they so wish - but usually it's strongly not in their best interests to do so.

As I've said before, you "can't" walk up to someone in the street and punch them into unconsciousness. But this definition of "can't" doesn't of course mean that anyone (provided they have sufficient physical strength) can do just that.

The fact is that the government of Scotland does not have the legal power to hold an independence referendum (nor to declare independence). Just like it does not have the legal power to vary personal income tax by more than 3% from that set by the UK government. And just as the Scottish government could "defy" Westminster by announcing a 20% cut in personal income tax in Scotland, it "could" also call a referendum without assent from the UK government. However, proper politicians in Scotland (unlike extreme activists) realise it would be extremely unwise to do either of those things.

The Scotland Act is explicitly clear on those powers that are devolved to the Scottish government, and those powers that are not devolved to the Scottish government. The ability to hold a referendum on independence is not a power that is devolved to the Scottish government. The only way in which the Scottish government can (legally) hold an independence referendum is for the UK government to assent to it. For the 2014 referendum, this took the form of the UK parliament passing an amendment to the Scotland Act, giving the Scottish government the temporary power to hold a referendum, plus the "Edinburgh Declaration" which gave assurance that the UK government would pass all necessary legislation to enable independence if that was the outcome of the referendum.

So my position is as it has always been. My point is that the Scottish government simply has no realpolitik interest in breaking the law and going for a referendum without UK government assent. Rather, the Scottish government will negotiate with the UK government (and those negotiations might be long drawn-out and protracted, or they might be relatively quick and easy) to the point where they come to a mutually agreeable position. And that position will be when the UK government agrees to do the same as it did for the 2014 referendum.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

Good grief. Do you seriously not understand that I was using a literary rhetorical device to try to illustrate my argument? I despair.

 

[ddt]

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.

Judging by the whole Brexit thing, the highlighted thing is where you go wrong. The UK government has gone from stupid to crazy. From three guys drinking in an airport bar thinking it would be a good idea to put the Brexit debate in their manifesto, to three guys who are continuously "tired and emotional", judged by what comes out of their mouth, in charge of Brexit.

During the campaign for Indyref, the "Three Amigos" promised a wide extension of devolved powers to the Scottish government in short order. We're two years down the line, what has been realized of that?

Nothing, you say?

Yep, fundamentally reasonable.

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.

Oh, I'm happy to entertain that scenario. At the time it happens, BoJo has been "promoted" to UN ambassador for his invaluable services in Brexit and in pissing off other country's governments, so he can now insult 192 countries in a single speech to their face. At the time of the crucial UNSC vote for a resolution to authorize force against the UK, BoJo goes AWOL. The US abstains, the other three permanent members vote in favour, and the non-permanent members in majority too.

The more interesting aspect in your thought experiment is what NATO would do when two of its members go to war. It nearly happened before, in 1974, over Cyprus.

 

[ddt]

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.

There are obvious measures of degree here. Scotland could realize it in short order, Northamptonshire not,

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

Your rocket-powered car is not TÜV approved for use on a public road, so your argument fails. The supplier(s) of the brakes for BMW and other brands for speed devils do not guarantee proper functioning above 200 mph, so that's why the cars are limited at that speed as well. And yes, I've seen them zip by at (nearly) those speeds. Also, insurers don't insure your damage when you drive over 130kph.

The fundamental problem is that your reductio ad absurdum does not take into account any such other aspects. Petoria in the Family Guy episode, or your LondonJohnia, would as an independent state be wholly dependent on the surrounding country, to the point that its inhabitants have to cross state lines to get to a Walmart or Tesco. Northamptonshire also would be wholly dependent on the UK for anything it doesn't produce itself. Scotland does not have that problem.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, no. You've created yet another straw man with respect to my position. My position is still, and has always been, that Scotland couldn't hold a referendum nor declare independence without the assent of the UK government to both. But that's "couldn't" in respect of UK law. You still seem unable to grasp that entities (or individuals) can do things that are against the law if they so wish - but usually it's strongly not in their best interests to do so.

As I've said before, you "can't" walk up to someone in the street and punch them into unconsciousness. But this definition of "can't" doesn't of course mean that anyone (provided they have sufficient physical strength) can do just that.

The fact is that the government of Scotland does not have the legal power to hold an independence referendum (nor to declare independence). Just like it does not have the legal power to vary personal income tax by more than 3% from that set by the UK government. And just as the Scottish government could "defy" Westminster by announcing a 20% cut in personal income tax in Scotland, it "could" also call a referendum without assent from the UK government. However, proper politicians in Scotland (unlike extreme activists) realise it would be extremely unwise to do either of those things.

The Scotland Act is explicitly clear on those powers that are devolved to the Scottish government, and those powers that are not devolved to the Scottish government. The ability to hold a referendum on independence is not a power that is devolved to the Scottish government. The only way in which the Scottish government can (legally) hold an independence referendum is for the UK government to assent to it. For the 2014 referendum, this took the form of the UK parliament passing an amendment to the Scotland Act, giving the Scottish government the temporary power to hold a referendum, plus the "Edinburgh Declaration" which gave assurance that the UK government would pass all necessary legislation to enable independence if that was the outcome of the referendum.

So my position is as it has always been. My point is that the Scottish government simply has no realpolitik interest in breaking the law and going for a referendum without UK government assent. Rather, the Scottish government will negotiate with the UK government (and those negotiations might be long drawn-out and protracted, or they might be relatively quick and easy) to the point where they come to a mutually agreeable position. And that position will be when the UK government agrees to do the same as it did for the 2014 referendum.

Someone praises you for being correct and you make a point of proving that you are wrong. How unexpected.

The Scotland act is explicit in reserving powers for Westminster. The right to hold a referendum on any matter is not one of them. The Scottish government can hold a referendum on any matter it wants.

So if tomorrow it wanted to hold a referendum that asked the people whether they should increase tax rates to 90p in the pound they could do so. What they could not do is legally enact legislation to deliver that if the country voted in favour.

Equally, if the country voted for independence there would be no legal route within the UK constitution to deliver that should Westminster not assent to it.

The difference between the tax situation and the independence situation is that there are other ways for a country to achieve independence which trump the basic UK constitutional position. A UDI declaration is one of them.

There is no extra-constitutional route as far as I am aware to enforce a differential tax law within a constituent part of the UK.

 

[LondonJohn]

Someone praises you for being correct and you make a point of proving that you are wrong. How unexpected.

Uhhh no. Someone cunningly misrepresents my position to make it seem like I've changed my mind to that person's (incorrect) position. And I make a point of showing that this is a devious misrepresentation.

But I'm far from surprised that you, in turn, chose to misrepresent my response in this way. Fundamentally intellectually dishonest I'm afraid. I'm out of this totally now. Enjoy the echo chamber of wrongness and extremism, y'all!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Uhhh no. Someone cunningly misrepresents my position to make it seem like I've changed my mind to that person's (incorrect) position. And I make a point of showing that this is a devious misrepresentation.

But I'm far from surprised that you, in turn, chose to misrepresent my response in this way. Fundamentally intellectually dishonest I'm afraid. I'm out of this totally now. Enjoy the echo chamber of wrongness and extremism, y'all!

The position that they can't is simply wrong and indefensible. The position that they wouldn't is an opinion but a defensible one.

If you have decided to withdraw from the argument then I commend you for that. Once less echo of wrongness and extremism.

 

[Architect]

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.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to pick you up on this one again.

What you have posited is Appeal to Extremes, rather than Reductio ad Absurdum, inasmuch as you have extrapolated beyond what is reasonable having regard to the specific considerations at hand.

Northamptonshire does indeed have local authority government, the powers of which are extremely limited in comparison to those realistically required to meet test (c) of the requirements for statehood.

It does not have, for example, revenue raising powers beyond setting of Council Tax and implementation of (nationally controlled) business rates. It does not have seperate legal jurisdiction, and it operates within the English national educational framework.

Even if there were local democratic support from a secessionist movement, it would therefore have what is frankly a terribly long journey to make.

If we take Scotland or for that matter Catalonia, the situation is markedly different. Both substantially meet test (c) and there is clear popular support for, as a minimum, further devolution of powers.

In short, you are comparing apples and (say) giraffes in order to try and make a point which does not, in fact, extend the discussion beyond rhetoric.

 

[Architect]

No, no. You've created yet another straw man with respect to my position. My position is still, and has always been, that Scotland couldn't hold a referendum nor declare independence without the assent of the UK government to both. But that's "couldn't" in respect of UK law. You still seem unable to grasp that entities (or individuals) can do things that are against the law if they so wish - but usually it's strongly not in their best interests to do so.

But the problem is that you have not, in fact, demonstrated that it would be illegal for the Scottish Government to pass legislation regarding an advisory referendum beyond the quote from Peter Catterall.

I explained at some length why further information on the Catterall position was required before one might reasoanbly decide what weight might be attached to that. It is quite clear on a fair reading that his short quote is far from absolute. Consequently at the very least sight of the full text of his comments would be required in order understand how he arrived at that conclusion.

Although I am an accreddited expert witness and have an understanding of the relevant mechanisms of law inasmuch as they pertain to construction work, I can pretend no expertise on constitutional matters (which are in any event highly specialist). I nevertheless presented to you a hypothetical counter-argument setting out how one might justify an advisory referendum within the terms of the Scotland Act. As far as I can see you did not respond to that and do think it would be helpful if you were to do so rather than simply returning to a slightly amended attempt at proof by assertion.

But I'm far from surprised that you, in turn, chose to misrepresent my response in this way. Fundamentally intellectually dishonest I'm afraid. I'm out of this totally now. Enjoy the echo chamber of wrongness and extremism, y'all!

With the deepest respect, I have put a number of very detailed points to you in posts and in each sought to explain my reasoning. Dr. Catterral and how we assess his quotation / opinion is but one example, others including interpretation of the Scotland Act and the tests for statehood. You have failed to engage with them in anything like that level of detail, instead making very broad comments of "wrongness" and the like. As this site the successor to JREF, I do not think it unreasonable for posters to ask you to properly argue your position on a reasoned basis and if that is not acceptable to you then I fear that the blame does not lie at my feet.

 

[Craig B]

Good grief. Do you seriously not understand that I was using a literary rhetorical device to try to illustrate my argument? I despair.

There is no need for you to abandon hope. I'm sure there must be online tutorials or evening courses on how to employ rhetoric effectively.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But the problem is that you have not, in fact, demonstrated that it would be illegal for the Scottish Government to pass legislation regarding an advisory referendum beyond the quote from Peter Catterall.

I explained at some length why further information on the Catterall position was required before one might reasoanbly decide what weight might be attached to that. It is quite clear on a fair reading that his short quote is far from absolute. Consequently at the very least sight of the full text of his comments would be required in order understand how he arrived at that conclusion.

Although I am an accreddited expert witness and have an understanding of the relevant mechanisms of law inasmuch as they pertain to construction work, I can pretend no expertise on constitutional matters (which are in any event highly specialist). I nevertheless presented to you a hypothetical counter-argument setting out how one might justify an advisory referendum within the terms of the Scotland Act. As far as I can see you did not respond to that and do think it would be helpful if you were to do so rather than simply returning to a slightly amended attempt at proof by assertion.



With the deepest respect, I have put a number of very detailed points to you in posts and in each sought to explain my reasoning. Dr. Catterral and how we assess his quotation / opinion is but one example, others including interpretation of the Scotland Act and the tests for statehood. You have failed to engage with them in anything like that level of detail, instead making very broad comments of "wrongness" and the like. As this site the successor to JREF, I do not think it unreasonable for posters to ask you to properly argue your position on a reasoned basis and if that is not acceptable to you then I fear that the blame does not lie at my feet.

It seems that we are discussing 1) areas of fact and 2) areas of opinion. I think some posters are blurring the lines of these two things and insisting that their opinion is fact.

If indeed it would be illegal for the Scottish government to hold a referendum on any topic then this should be easy enough to prove with a quote of the relevant law. What has been offered instead is an opinion which may well be an expert opinion but, as you point out, lacks sufficient explanation as to be interpreted clearly and without room for misunderstanding.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I have to admit when I see the coverage of Scotland, the SNP and Indyref in England it shouldn't come as a great surprise that English commentators come across as hostile and uninformed. They are being fed a diet of biased misinformation and 'expert opinion' from commentators who barely set foot outside of London and would struggle to find Scotland on a map.

If you listen to these people without engaging with any of the actual debate going on then it's not a huge surprise I suppose that end up with the unsupportable nonsense we have seen here and elsewhere. I still don't really understand the hostility mind you but then again they are being told repeatedly (and without evidence) that the SNP and independence supporters are anti-English zealots so I guess they just decide to believe that since it fits their narrative.

 

[Aber]

I have to admit when I see the coverage of Scotland, the SNP and Indyref in England it shouldn't come as a great surprise that English commentators come across as hostile and uninformed. They are being fed a diet of biased misinformation and 'expert opinion' from commentators who barely set foot outside of London and would struggle to find Scotland on a map.

If you listen to these people without engaging with any of the actual debate going on then it's not a huge surprise I suppose that end up with the unsupportable nonsense we have seen here and elsewhere. I still don't really understand the hostility mind you but then again they are being told repeatedly (and without evidence) that the SNP and independence supporters are anti-English zealots so I guess they just decide to believe that since it fits their narrative.

Certainly zealots.

Anti-English - not necessarily

Anti-Westminster - absolutely; an 'us vs them' argument helps

I think the biggest issue is the perceived 'Stop talking Scotland down' response to all criticism of SNP claims that life would be better post-independence.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Certainly zealots.

Anti-English - not necessarily

Anti-Westminster - absolutely; an 'us vs them' argument helps

I think the biggest issue is the perceived 'Stop talking Scotland down' response to all criticism of SNP claims that life would be better post-independence.

I don't think 45% of Scotland (if that's the number we are talking about who support Independence and/or a second Indyref) could be described as zealots.

Anti-English - certainly not. There is nothing in Independence, SNP policy or any pro-indy argument that is about making England worse off, damaging England or limiting the ability of England or English people to do what they want. (Except for controlling the people of Scotland.)

Anti-Westminster - quite probably. But again this is a reaction to the situation. If Westminster had no control over Scottish affairs then that would go away. The system and outcomes of it have set Westminster and Holyrood at odds with each other.

What do you mean by issue? I have no problem having an economic discussion on whether Scotland would be better or worse off post-independence. The truth is in the long term its very hard to say. What I do object to are untruths peddled to make an economic case against Scotland - for example the idea that England pays for Scotland to have free prescriptions and university education.

I've already said on this thread that there are some difficult economic questions that need to be addressed. Sadly the commentary I have seen provided in England never gets beyond the sneering 'subsidy junkies wouldn't be able to pay their way' level of debate.

ETA: My position on this has been for sometime that Scotland and the rUK are fundamentally incompatible in a number of ways. Not least of all the basic underlying acceptance of Scotland as being a separate and distinct entity. This simply creates an enormous amount of tension that will never be resolved because both sides are fundamentally correct in their underlying arguments.

Scotland as a partner in the Union will never be happy while its will is subservient to that of the rUK and there is no way that I can see to remedy this while it remains ~10% of the population of the UK. If you acknowledge that fundamental issue then the solution seems obvious and inevitable. The question is when rather than if Scotland separates. To preserve the Union what is needed is an alternative inclusive narrative that sets out how we can all work together for joint betterment. What we get instead is being told to sit down and shut up and stop moaning (or from the more loopy told you're not even a country anyway). That's never going to work.

 

[Aber]

Scotland as a partner in the Union will never be happy while its will is subservient to that of the rUK and there is no way that I can see to remedy this while it remains ~10% of the population of the UK. If you acknowledge that fundamental issue then the solution seems obvious and inevitable. The question is when rather than if Scotland separates. To preserve the Union what is needed is an alternative inclusive narrative that sets out how we can all work together for joint betterment. What we get instead is being told to sit down and shut up and stop moaning (or from the more loopy told you're not even a country anyway). That's never going to work.

You have a lot of assumptions buried in there:

Scotland as a partner in the Union will never be happy

Why is it the SNP speaks for Scotland, while the majority who oppose independence don't?

If you acknowledge that fundamental issue

People in favour of the Union don't accept it

the solution seems obvious and inevitable

It does, only if you assume the answer is independence

an alternative inclusive narrative that sets out how we can all work together for joint betterment

Which is basically the current settlement

What we get instead is being told to sit down and shut up and stop moaning

Because others do not accept your premise that independence is obvious and inevitable.

Anti-Westminster - quite probably. But again this is a reaction to the situation.

And the SNP changing its policy so that it votes on English-only issues in Westminster on fairly thin grounds. It could be seen as deliberately trying to goad Westminster.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You have a lot of assumptions buried in there:

Yes possibly , but reasonable ones I think

Why is it the SNP speaks for Scotland, while the majority who oppose independence don't?

I don't think the SNP does speak for all of Scotland necessarily, nor even the entirety of people in favour of independence. However they are the elected government of Scotland. This point from you doesn't really seem like a counter to my point. Merely a reminder that the majority currently aren't in favour of independence. I wouldn't assume for a second that all of those in favour of the Union are happy with the setup.

People in favour of the Union don't accept it

Well obviously a sizeable percentage if not all of them don't. That doesn't make them right. However there is no alternative proposal from them which can resolve the fundamental issue - and if as you say they don't even acknowledge the issue it seems even more inevitable that change will happen at some point in the future.

It does, only if you assume the answer is independence

No, I assume AN answer is independence. So far we have a grand total of 1 answer offered. I'm all ears on alternatives.

Which is basically the current settlement

No, it isn't. Because as we see the current settlement has almost half of the people of Scotland willing to walk away today and another unknown percentage not happy but unwilling to make that leap towards independence. The direction of travel seems obvious. Which is why i say it seems inevitable.

Because others do not accept your premise that independence is obvious and inevitable.

That was not a premise. It was a conclusion.

The premises are:

1. A sizeable proportion of the Scottish population already want independence
2. The actions on both sides of the border seem to be increasing the tensions
3. More and more people in Scotland appear to be becoming 'scunnered' with Westminster while Westminster increasingly does what it wants.
4. No alternative is being offered that addresses any of the concerns of people unhappy with the current situation.
5. Demographics are increasing the pro-indy percentage on a daily basis.

As I say, unless something significant changes it seems unimaginable that the number in favour of independence won't hit 50.1% at some point.

And the SNP changing its policy so that it votes on English-only issues in Westminster on fairly thin grounds. It could be seen as deliberately trying to goad Westminster.

Well I think it may have been triggered by the Unionist parties promising Scotland more powers and then before the votes in Indyref were even counted saying 'Forget that. Let's have EVEL'

Of course the problem is there is no such thing as English-only legislation. The fact that it is even being discussed is a tacit admission from the Unionist parties of the problem I outline above and yet more evidence that the status quo cannot persist in perpetuity unless someone does something to change the direction of travel.

I'd love to hear a suggestion of how the EVEL issue could be resolved equitably in your opinion. Independence seems like the only way that could be done.

 

[dudalb]

It seems that we are discussing 1) areas of fact and 2) areas of opinion. I think some posters are blurring the lines of these two things and insisting that their opinion is fact.

If indeed it would be illegal for the Scottish government to hold a referendum on any topic then this should be easy enough to prove with a quote of the relevant law. What has been offered instead is an opinion which may well be an expert opinion but, as you point out, lacks sufficient explanation as to be interpreted clearly and without room for misunderstanding.

Remember the scene in "Inside Out" when Joy and Sadness are on the Train of Thought, and Joy sees two boxes: One marked Facts and the other marked Opinions and says "Those two always get mixed up".

 

[ceptimus]

Sturgeon should now call for a re-run of the USA election, seeing as how the democratic result was the wrong one, in her opinion.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sturgeon should now call for a re-run of the USA election, seeing as how the democratic result was the wrong one, in her opinion.

Cool non sequitur bingo. Can I play?