Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The exodus of CON MPs continues – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 23 in General
The exodus of CON MPs continues – politicalbetting.com

It's not just the sinking ship analogy which matters. It's the fact that they are losing precisely the cohort and generation they need even to have a chance of renewing themselves in opposition.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,501
    First out?
  • The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,501
    Writing is on the wall, to an extent. Unless you think you're (a) going to keep your seat and (b) be the person to turn it round in opposition, why not do something else for a few years and come back later if you wish?
  • Do we have a list of departing MPs ?

    It will be good riddance for some of them.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,767
    When Guido Fawkes tweeted about this earlier he linked to https://pollingreport.uk/seats/E14000738

    When you visit that site you can see why Tory MPs are looking at their career options. The Tory vote percentage locally is supposed to drop from 48% in to at best 30% with Labour getting 57%.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,864

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    Missing the point as always.

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    And now for the really awkward bit - the SNP having to explain how a “de facto” referendum in the general election is going to work

    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595357498575392770
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    Lord Reed: Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation.
    SNP MSP: Ruling that Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation proves it is.
    *Sigh*


    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1595359182148042753
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,821
    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    The judges must be breathing a sigh of relief, now that you've confirmed they got it right.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,272
    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,684
    If Labour promises to give Scotland another referendum, that might just seal the deal with the English. :wink:
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    Or even how they are allowed to decide whether they *want* a referendum given that at present we have a

    (a) majority of the vote for parties which want a referendum
    (b) majority of MSPs ditto
    (c) majority of MPs ditto.
  • Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    It's a very good question. The real significance of the judgment is what it said about the right to self-determination under international law.

  • HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    After this morning's unanimous judgement by the SC with no right to appeal indyref2 can only take place with the consent of Westminster

    If I am being cynical I expect Sturgeon is delighted as she can now blame Westminster for all Scots issues while never having to face losing her life's work

    I expect her to seek a future away from the SNP in the coming years

    As far as conservative mps seeking to move on post GE24, I would do the same if I was in their position as I cannot see beyond a lot of lost conservative seats and to be honest some leaving will actually be a cause for celebration
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Carnyx said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    Or even how they are allowed to decide whether they *want* a referendum given that at present we have a

    (a) majority of the vote for parties which want a referendum
    (b) majority of MSPs ditto
    (c) majority of MPs ditto.
    Only about 10% of MPs currently want a referendum.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,864
    edited November 23
    eek said:

    When Guido Fawkes tweeted about this earlier he linked to https://pollingreport.uk/seats/E14000738

    When you visit that site you can see why Tory MPs are looking at their career options. The Tory vote percentage locally is supposed to drop from 48% in to at best 30% with Labour getting 57%.

    Based on the latest Opinium poll though the Tories would still have 171 seats even on the current boundaries, slightly more than the 165 they got in 1997 and the 166 they got in 2001. So yes many Tory MPs would need to seek new employment but Sunak would still not face as bad a defeat as Major or Hague did then, even if Truss had she stayed would likely would led the party to an even worse defeat than 1997. Opinium one of the most accurate pollsters at the last general election.

    https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1594057925936521219?s=20&t=aR5v-8zwWHLncdvLfcvdng
    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=28&LAB=45&LIB=9&Reform=3&Green=4&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.2&SCOTLAB=30.5&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=0.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=45&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    edited November 23
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    Or even how they are allowed to decide whether they *want* a referendum given that at present we have a

    (a) majority of the vote for parties which want a referendum
    (b) majority of MSPs ditto
    (c) majority of MPs ditto.
    Only about 10% of MPs currently want a referendum.
    The context of the discussion is how people living in Scotland can vote at all. MPs in rUK are not relevant.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    kle4 said:

    I'm not surprised by the judgement.

    I do think the UK gov's position of 'just ignore it and it'll go away' is not sustainable, but I'm not sure where we go from here, since I also don't think it is the job of courts to get creative around what the law is for political expediency.

    The Scottish Parliament has to respond, beyond simply lamenting the decision, but would they really go nuclear on treating a GE result as a pseudo-referendum?

    kle4 said:

    I'm not surprised by the judgement.

    I do think the UK gov's position of 'just ignore it and it'll go away' is not sustainable, but I'm not sure where we go from here, since I also don't think it is the job of courts to get creative around what the law is for political expediency.

    The Scottish Parliament has to respond, beyond simply lamenting the decision, but would they really go nuclear on treating a GE result as a pseudo-referendum?

    Unless the UK government agrees to indyref2 there is no other way of circumventing today's unanimous SC judgment including a pseudo-referendum GE
    Legally circumventing was not my point - they clearly have to respond in some way, and are not going to just throw up their hands and say 'Oh well, we tried'. Whether they'd then act on treating the GE that way or not, would they threaten to do so?
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    I'm not surprised by the judgement.

    I do think the UK gov's position of 'just ignore it and it'll go away' is not sustainable, but I'm not sure where we go from here, since I also don't think it is the job of courts to get creative around what the law is for political expediency.

    The Scottish Parliament has to respond, beyond simply lamenting the decision, but would they really go nuclear on treating a GE result as a pseudo-referendum?

    Separatist movements do sometimes run out of steam. BQ, Vlaams Blok, etc.

    The occupiers assume, with some justification, that the Sturgeon Show will eventually be cancelled and the SNP will struggle to find a sufficiently galvanising replacement.
    I do wonder if it was obvious to people BQ was running out of steam, or if it came suddenly and as a shock.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,983
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In the SNP's very own white paper on the matter.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,920
    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    And when you do vote again, have answers to the questions that you tried to sweep under the carpet last time.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    Paragraph 30 commits the Scottish government to respecting the outcome of the referendum as decisive, something they have singularly failed to do.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    Separatist movements across the EU - and in Spain particularly - will be spitting blood that the SNP asked the UK Supreme Court to look at the right to self-determination under international law.

    Why is that? Presumably the view of our SC would not be determinative for them, or if it is spot on would make no difference to what the right is if they ever tried to challenge on that basis?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    Or even how they are allowed to decide whether they *want* a referendum given that at present we have a

    (a) majority of the vote for parties which want a referendum
    (b) majority of MSPs ditto
    (c) majority of MPs ditto.
    Only about 10% of MPs currently want a referendum.
    The context of the discussion is how people living in Scotland can vote at all. MPs in rUK are not relevant.
    I think MPs for the United Kingdom are relevant here, yes, and the SC agrees.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,214
    I retired in 2010 with a small lump sum, and no obvious thing to spend it on. Interest rates were low, but Miliband Junior (bless his cotton socks) was trying to coax people to buy solar panels, and we had a SW-sloping roof. The payments were guaranteed for 25 years and would go up with inflation, and it gave us a warm, fuzzy feeling for doing something useful.

    We spent £11,400 on the panels (they were expensive at the time), but we’ve received double that back in direct payments into our bank account since then, producing 40,000 KWh of electricity in the process.

    We were very lucky, but what of those less fortunate? They were rewarded with having to pay the Green Levy for the next decade. Not an inconsiderable sum. To make matters worse, they’ve also been inconvenienced and irritated by a bunch of loons called Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.

    These activists, generally poshos and teenagers, not content with having to teach people their facts – they’d clearly not seen a newspaper or TV channel for a couple of decades – they’ve had to teach them a lesson. They’ve had to climb gantries, and force these people to keep car their engines idling for hours on end, all seemingly to enrich the local petrol stations.

    Are the fools grateful? No, but you can’t expect gratitude from people who aren’t as clever as the cognesente who understand these things. They’re special people, don’t you know? Even worse are the morons who support them in a kind of reflected glory.

    They even think they represent the silent majority when they fit neither of those descriptions.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,272
    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    Ah, so you and people like you make the rules on behalf of us? Glad we cleared that up.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    edited November 23

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    With that option excluded? I cannot think of one.

    Without independence support fizzling out, which I'm going out on a limb will not be the reaction to this judgement, there will be a huge desire for action but no obvious outlet for that action, that is concerning as it makes things unpredictable.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    Paragraph 30 commits the Scottish government to respecting the outcome of the referendum as decisive, something they have singularly failed to do.
    Nonsense. They accepted it at once. They did not, for instance, declare UDI.

    Now it is the popular will for another referendum, after major breaches of promise by the Unionists (Federation, EU membership, etc.). Different situation, different time, different referendum.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,864
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    Or even how they are allowed to decide whether they *want* a referendum given that at present we have a

    (a) majority of the vote for parties which want a referendum
    (b) majority of MSPs ditto
    (c) majority of MPs ditto.
    Only about 10% of MPs currently want a referendum.
    The context of the discussion is how people living in Scotland can vote at all. MPs in rUK are not relevant.
    Yes they are, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, a sovereign nation, not a sovereign nation itself. Westminster and Westminster alone therefore has the final say on the future of the union in every part of the UK as the SC has just confirmed
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,654
    Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    Or even how they are allowed to decide whether they *want* a referendum given that at present we have a

    (a) majority of the vote for parties which want a referendum
    (b) majority of MSPs ditto
    (c) majority of MPs ditto.
    Only about 10% of MPs currently want a referendum.
    The context of the discussion is how people living in Scotland can vote at all. MPs in rUK are not relevant.
    I think MPs for the United Kingdom are relevant here, yes, and the SC agrees.
    Only under laws passed by them. Which is the point.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,920

    And now for the really awkward bit - the SNP having to explain how a “de facto” referendum in the general election is going to work

    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595357498575392770

    Ditto Alba. How does Alex Salmond differentiate himself from a boxed-in SNP?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    Ah, so you and people like you make the rules on behalf of us? Glad we cleared that up.
    "People like me" being people who believe in paragraph 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,864

    Separatist movements across the EU - and in Spain particularly - will be spitting blood that the SNP asked the UK Supreme Court to look at the right to self-determination under international law.

    And ended up with the UK SC taking as hard a line on the question as Spain's SC did
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    Paragraph 30 commits the Scottish government to respecting the outcome of the referendum as decisive, something they have singularly failed to do.
    Nonsense.
    :lol:
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411
    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    It is, but, and its a big but, if the SNP keep framing election campaigns as single item votes and keep winning and if the opinion polling in Scotland shifts significantly in favour of a referendum/independence, then I think it has to happen.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In the SNP's very own white paper on the matter.
    Not the agreement. Andf in the context of "first chance for decades - get on with it". Not in terms of the next generation/referendum. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,821

    Lord Reed: Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation.
    SNP MSP: Ruling that Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation proves it is.
    *Sigh*


    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1595359182148042753

    A bit hamstrung by the fact that Lord Reed is Scottish, surely.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    Ah, so you and people like you make the rules on behalf of us? Glad we cleared that up.
    "People like me" being people who believe in paragraph 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement?
    Good if you could co-operate on having another IndyRef as expressed by the will of the Scottish people in electing a majority of IndyRef supporting MSPs.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    Or even how they are allowed to decide whether they *want* a referendum given that at present we have a

    (a) majority of the vote for parties which want a referendum
    (b) majority of MSPs ditto
    (c) majority of MPs ditto.
    Only about 10% of MPs currently want a referendum.
    The context of the discussion is how people living in Scotland can vote at all. MPs in rUK are not relevant.
    Yes, they are since those are the people that have the power to hold a referendum. Nothing is stopping the SNP standing candidates across the whole country.
  • kle4 said:

    Separatist movements across the EU - and in Spain particularly - will be spitting blood that the SNP asked the UK Supreme Court to look at the right to self-determination under international law.

    Why is that? Presumably the view of our SC would not be determinative for them, or if it is spot on would make no difference to what the right is if they ever tried to challenge on that basis?

    The UK Supreme Court will be a persuasive authority when similar cases are argued elsewhere. Note how the Canadian Supreme Court was referenced in today's decision. Politically, it will make it much harder to get international recognition for unilateral action.

  • I wonder whether we will now see a split in the SNP between constitutionalists and those advocating unilateral action.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,983
    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In the SNP's very own white paper on the matter.
    Not the agreement. Andf in the context of "first chance for decades - get on with it". Not in terms of the next generation/referendum. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
    You were accusing him of fibbing by using quotation marks when it is actually a direct quote from the SNP's white paper.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    How would Cornwall do it? Or Yorkshire? I believe three times Scotland has voted to remain in the Union. Its not like they haven't had a say...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046

    Separatist movements across the EU - and in Spain particularly - will be spitting blood that the SNP asked the UK Supreme Court to look at the right to self-determination under international law.

    Notably it was the SNP - not the Advocate General - which advanced this argument:

    The Scottish National Party’s additional arguments: self-determination and the principle of legality

    84. In addition to adopting the submissions made by Lord Advocate in support of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the proposed Bill, the intervener, the Scottish National Party, makes further submissions founded on the right to self-determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law.....There are insuperable obstacles in the path of the intervener’s argument based on self-determination......A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of
    equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity
    recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international
    law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.”

    89. In our view these observations apply with equal force to the position of
    Scotland and the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Alistair said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    Ah, so you and people like you make the rules on behalf of us? Glad we cleared that up.
    "People like me" being people who believe in paragraph 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement?
    Good if you could co-operate on having another IndyRef as expressed by the will of the Scottish people in electing a majority of IndyRef supporting MSPs.
    Irrelevant, I'm afraid - the Scottish parliament doesn't have the power to call a referendum (as everyone knew at the time of the last Scottish parliament election and has been confirmed today) so votes for that parliament cannot create a mandate for one.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In the SNP's very own white paper on the matter.
    Not the agreement. Andf in the context of "first chance for decades - get on with it". Not in terms of the next generation/referendum. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
    You were accusing him of fibbing by using quotation marks when it is actually a direct quote from the SNP's white paper.
    The white paper is not the Edinburgh Agreement, which is what I specified. And I learnt a long time ago that what counts is the legal stuff.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,272
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In PB world, only the losers have to hold to statements made before elections/referndums, the winners are allowed as much amnesia as they need.



    'On September 7th the BBC broadcast a speech by Mr Brown in which the Labour MP pledged Home Rule if Scotland voted No in the independence referendum.
    A day later, Better Together leader Alistair Darling confirmed in a BBC interview that Devo Max would be offered to Scotland if voters rejected independence.  Devo Max is accepted to mean the devolution of all powers, with the exception of Foreign Affairs and Defence.
    Days after Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling made their pledge, the three leaders of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems signed a vow promising to honour the pledge and grant Scotland significant new powers.'
  • I wonder whether we will now see a split in the SNP between constitutionalists and those advocating unilateral action.

    Very good news for SLAB if that happens.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    How would Cornwall do it? Or Yorkshire? I believe three times Scotland has voted to remain in the Union. Its not like they haven't had a say...
    Three times?! To vote to remain?

    What have you been reading, Our Island Story!?

    There were only ever two referenda for devolution (one lost, one won) and one independence referendum).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,983
    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In the SNP's very own white paper on the matter.
    Not the agreement. Andf in the context of "first chance for decades - get on with it". Not in terms of the next generation/referendum. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
    You were accusing him of fibbing by using quotation marks when it is actually a direct quote from the SNP's white paper.
    The white paper is not the Edinburgh Agreement, which is what I specified. And I learnt a long time ago that what counts is the legal stuff.
    But that was after he made the quote. If the SNP described it as a once in a generation referendum, why can't he? Or was the SNP not being entirely honest in the white paper.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,811
    Nobody's very sympathetic to MPs who expect to lose their seats, but it's a real issue depending on their line of work. After 13 years I had zero prospect of getting another IT job, and others with work in a rapidly-evolving field would have the same issue. A nurse probably not so much in view of the shortage.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,374

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    If there is still pressure for another referendum in say 20-30 years time, that would seem to me to be about a generation's time....
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Driver said:

    Alistair said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    Ah, so you and people like you make the rules on behalf of us? Glad we cleared that up.
    "People like me" being people who believe in paragraph 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement?
    Good if you could co-operate on having another IndyRef as expressed by the will of the Scottish people in electing a majority of IndyRef supporting MSPs.
    Irrelevant, I'm afraid - the Scottish parliament doesn't have the power to call a referendum (as everyone knew at the time of the last Scottish parliament election and has been confirmed today) so votes for that parliament cannot create a mandate for one.
    Ah, so you don't believe in Paragraph 30 then.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    Missing the point as always.

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    edited November 23
    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In the SNP's very own white paper on the matter.
    Not the agreement. Andf in the context of "first chance for decades - get on with it". Not in terms of the next generation/referendum. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
    You were accusing him of fibbing by using quotation marks when it is actually a direct quote from the SNP's white paper.
    The white paper is not the Edinburgh Agreement, which is what I specified. And I learnt a long time ago that what counts is the legal stuff.
    But that was after he made the quote. If the SNP described it as a once in a generation referendum, why can't he? Or was the SNP not being entirely honest in the white paper.
    On ce in a generation was, as I said, the generation up to the vote - not the next generation. And you still haven't shown it was in the Agreement.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,693

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In PB world, only the losers have to hold to statements made before elections/referndums, the winners are allowed as much amnesia as they need.



    'On September 7th the BBC broadcast a speech by Mr Brown in which the Labour MP pledged Home Rule if Scotland voted No in the independence referendum.
    A day later, Better Together leader Alistair Darling confirmed in a BBC interview that Devo Max would be offered to Scotland if voters rejected independence.  Devo Max is accepted to mean the devolution of all powers, with the exception of Foreign Affairs and Defence.
    Days after Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling made their pledge, the three leaders of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems signed a vow promising to honour the pledge and grant Scotland significant new powers.'
    Leaving the EU is both a strong justification for Indyref2 and a reason why it will be harder than last time to get Yes above 50%.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,684

    I wonder whether we will now see a split in the SNP between constitutionalists and those advocating unilateral action.

    I do hope so. We could do with some excitement.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    Nobody's very sympathetic to MPs who expect to lose their seats, but it's a real issue depending on their line of work. After 13 years I had zero prospect of getting another IT job, and others with work in a rapidly-evolving field would have the same issue. A nurse probably not so much in view of the shortage.

    It's a fair point. That seems to be recognised for those who lose their seats getting a payment, but I don't think those voluntarily leaving get one?

    The younger MPs getting out as the header says is, I think, potentially significant if it becomes a trend.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    Missing the point as always.

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    The interesting point here is that Scotland is not a new entity at all - legally in particular. Unchanged borders and all that.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    It was mentioned three times in the Scottish Government's White Paper, and frequently by Salmond and Sturgeon, so to accuse a poster of "fibbing" when it wasn't in one document is a bit off.

    If you've forgotten:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzot3DNeU4
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,397

    Lord Reed: Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation.
    SNP MSP: Ruling that Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation proves it is.
    *Sigh*


    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1595359182148042753

    So now we have it confirmed that Scotland is a colony of England. End of any pretence of democracy by a lickspittle English court.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    It was mentioned three times in the Scottish Government's White Paper, and frequently by Salmond and Sturgeon, so to accuse a poster of "fibbing" when it wasn't in one document is a bit off.

    If you've forgotten:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzot3DNeU4
    Not relevant. I said the Edinburgh Agreement.
  • Separatist movements across the EU - and in Spain particularly - will be spitting blood that the SNP asked the UK Supreme Court to look at the right to self-determination under international law.

    Notably it was the SNP - not the Advocate General - which advanced this argument:

    The Scottish National Party’s additional arguments: self-determination and the principle of legality

    84. In addition to adopting the submissions made by Lord Advocate in support of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the proposed Bill, the intervener, the Scottish National Party, makes further submissions founded on the right to self-determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law.....There are insuperable obstacles in the path of the intervener’s argument based on self-determination......A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of
    equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity
    recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international
    law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.”

    89. In our view these observations apply with equal force to the position of
    Scotland and the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
    The SNP really should not have asked that question. It was a very foolish thing to do. For me, it is by far the most significant part of the judgment.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,705
    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In the SNP's very own white paper on the matter.
    Not the agreement. Andf in the context of "first chance for decades - get on with it". Not in terms of the next generation/referendum. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
    You were accusing him of fibbing by using quotation marks when it is actually a direct quote from the SNP's white paper.
    The white paper is not the Edinburgh Agreement, which is what I specified. And I learnt a long time ago that what counts is the legal stuff.
    But that was after he made the quote. If the SNP described it as a once in a generation referendum, why can't he? Or was the SNP not being entirely honest in the white paper.
    On ce in a generation was, as I said, the generation up to the vote - not the next generation. And you still haven't shown it was in the Agreement.
    The "generation" argument is entirely semantic, and basically legally void - the word is simply not within the judgement. The court is essentially saying that the UK Gov't does not ever have to give a referendum.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    Given the quality of the three papers on independence so far published, that Supreme Court ruling will come as an enormous relief to serious people inside the Scottish Government.

    https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1595360040243847168
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,397
    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In the SNP's very own white paper on the matter.
    Not the agreement. Andf in the context of "first chance for decades - get on with it". Not in terms of the next generation/referendum. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
    You were accusing him of fibbing by using quotation marks when it is actually a direct quote from the SNP's white paper.
    The white paper is not the Edinburgh Agreement, which is what I specified. And I learnt a long time ago that what counts is the legal stuff.
    But that was after he made the quote. If the SNP described it as a once in a generation referendum, why can't he? Or was the SNP not being entirely honest in the white paper.
    On ce in a generation was, as I said, the generation up to the vote - not the next generation. And you still haven't shown it was in the Agreement.
    Rob just spouting usual Tory pish. It was never in any agreement and no-one can saddle futuire parliaments.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Alistair said:

    Driver said:

    Alistair said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    Ah, so you and people like you make the rules on behalf of us? Glad we cleared that up.
    "People like me" being people who believe in paragraph 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement?
    Good if you could co-operate on having another IndyRef as expressed by the will of the Scottish people in electing a majority of IndyRef supporting MSPs.
    Irrelevant, I'm afraid - the Scottish parliament doesn't have the power to call a referendum (as everyone knew at the time of the last Scottish parliament election and has been confirmed today) so votes for that parliament cannot create a mandate for one.
    Ah, so you don't believe in Paragraph 30 then.
    I absolutely do. The neverendummers are the ones who don't.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,374

    Separatist movements across the EU - and in Spain particularly - will be spitting blood that the SNP asked the UK Supreme Court to look at the right to self-determination under international law.

    Notably it was the SNP - not the Advocate General - which advanced this argument:

    The Scottish National Party’s additional arguments: self-determination and the principle of legality

    84. In addition to adopting the submissions made by Lord Advocate in support of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the proposed Bill, the intervener, the Scottish National Party, makes further submissions founded on the right to self-determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law.....There are insuperable obstacles in the path of the intervener’s argument based on self-determination......A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of
    equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity
    recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international
    law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.”

    89. In our view these observations apply with equal force to the position of
    Scotland and the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
    The SNP really should not have asked that question. It was a very foolish thing to do. For me, it is by far the most significant part of the judgment.

    Pretty unequivocal isn't it!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,397
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    Missing the point as always.

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,397
    Mortimer said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    If there is still pressure for another referendum in say 20-30 years time, that would seem to me to be about a generation's time....
    You fcuking halfwitted moron
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    malcolmg said:

    Lord Reed: Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation.
    SNP MSP: Ruling that Scotland is neither a colony nor an oppressed nation proves it is.
    *Sigh*


    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1595359182148042753

    So now we have it confirmed that Scotland is a colony of England. End of any pretence of democracy by a lickspittle English court.
    Lord Reed is Scottish.

    Try again?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    edited November 23
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    Missing the point as always.

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    The interesting point here is that Scotland is not a new entity at all - legally in particular. Unchanged borders and all that.
    That's why I put new in quotation marks and then said entities rather than countries. Scotland is a very historically recognised polity, but is not currently recognised as an independent state - and ultimately if you are recognised as independent is more criticial than anything else, since it doesn't matter (in international relations anyway) if you have a functioning state that is de facto independent, like Somaliland, if no one treats you as one.

    The number of recognised countries in the modern era, absent those periods of excitement, tends to be slow to increase.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,374
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    Missing the point as always.

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    British empire. Not English. British.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    It was mentioned three times in the Scottish Government's White Paper, and frequently by Salmond and Sturgeon, so to accuse a poster of "fibbing" when it wasn't in one document is a bit off.

    If you've forgotten:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzot3DNeU4
    Not relevant. I said the Edinburgh Agreement.
    Driver never wrote it was in the Edinburgh Agreement - you did that subsequently, then accused them of fibbing.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,272

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    How would Cornwall do it? Or Yorkshire? I believe three times Scotland has voted to remain in the Union. Its not like they haven't had a say...
    Which three times were they? This is news to me but I'll certainly yield to some prime Scotch expertise on the subject.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    Missing the point as always.

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    Poor Wales, overlooked again.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,982
    edited November 23

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You already know the answer to that, but let me spell it out for you.

    1. You persuade 45% of the electors of Scotland to vote for your party, which would deliver you 90% of parliamentary Scottish seats. That means that you get a wholly disproportionate and unrepresentative 8% or so of seats in the UK parliament, on the back of only 4% of the UK wide vote. Maybe even 40% of Scottish electors would be enough to do the trick.

    2. You then use that 8% of the UK parliamentary seats to basically make government of the UK impossible, and bring down any government which tries to govern effectively, unless you're given another referendum. That can't be tried at the moment in the face of a Conservative majority, but you may get the chance if Labour and the LDs between them don't get a majority of seats.

    The flaw in that strategy is that you'll be campaigning in Scotland on the basis that you want a return to the parliamentary paralysis that we saw under Theresa May, and trusting that Scots share your priority that the constitutional issue trumps all, as opposed to the election of a stable and effective UK government. I don't think it will. And after 14 years of Conservative government, you'll be doing your damnedest to bring down a government of an alternative colour. I don't think that'll go down well with former Labour voters who switched to the SNP in 2015.

    3. So there is a third part. In order to get the vote of at least 40% of Scottish electors, make sure you keep your true intentions hidden from them as long as you can. Although, if you do have to follow through and bring down a Labour-led government, I think the game will be up for you at the following 2025 GE.


  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    It was mentioned three times in the Scottish Government's White Paper, and frequently by Salmond and Sturgeon, so to accuse a poster of "fibbing" when it wasn't in one document is a bit off.

    If you've forgotten:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzot3DNeU4
    Not relevant. I said the Edinburgh Agreement.
    Why does that matter in particular? Given the SNP's entire strategy since five minutes after losing in 2014 was to hold a referendum that was technically advisory but in practice binding, why are you obsessed with one precise phrase in one single document?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,398
    malcolmg said:

    Mortimer said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    If there is still pressure for another referendum in say 20-30 years time, that would seem to me to be about a generation's time....
    You fcuking halfwitted moron
    Anyone who didn't laugh out loud must be clinically depressed!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,300
    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In PB world, only the losers have to hold to statements made before elections/referndums, the winners are allowed as much amnesia as they need.



    'On September 7th the BBC broadcast a speech by Mr Brown in which the Labour MP pledged Home Rule if Scotland voted No in the independence referendum.
    A day later, Better Together leader Alistair Darling confirmed in a BBC interview that Devo Max would be offered to Scotland if voters rejected independence.  Devo Max is accepted to mean the devolution of all powers, with the exception of Foreign Affairs and Defence.
    Days after Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling made their pledge, the three leaders of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems signed a vow promising to honour the pledge and grant Scotland significant new powers.'
    Leaving the EU is both a strong justification for Indyref2 and a reason why it will be harder than last time to get Yes above 50%.
    Precisely why Brexit is such a knife in the ribs for Scotland. Kicked out of a union they wanted to stay in, trapped in a union that half want to leave.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    It was mentioned three times in the Scottish Government's White Paper, and frequently by Salmond and Sturgeon, so to accuse a poster of "fibbing" when it wasn't in one document is a bit off.

    If you've forgotten:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzot3DNeU4
    Not relevant. I said the Edinburgh Agreement.
    Why does that matter in particular? Given the SNP's entire strategy since five minutes after losing in 2014 was to hold a referendum that was technically advisory but in practice binding, why are you obsessed with one precise phrase in one single document?
    It's the PBTOries who are obsesses with that phrase, which isn't in the key document.

    I learned very long ago to check the small print and legal stuff.
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 181

    Cat Neilan
    @CatNeilan
    Rishi Sunak is said to be on #pmqs damage limitation mode after the weekend's story about a Swiss-style deal put the cat among the pigeons.

    Widely seen as having come from Jeremy Hunt, who is now under pressure to keep his job...

    https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1595119186308902913

    Such larks.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,469

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You need to persuade your supreme and sovereign parliament in Westminster that another indyref is due. You know, the Parliament YOU agreed to make supreme, in the Act of Union
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046

    Separatist movements across the EU - and in Spain particularly - will be spitting blood that the SNP asked the UK Supreme Court to look at the right to self-determination under international law.

    Notably it was the SNP - not the Advocate General - which advanced this argument:

    The Scottish National Party’s additional arguments: self-determination and the principle of legality

    84. In addition to adopting the submissions made by Lord Advocate in support of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the proposed Bill, the intervener, the Scottish National Party, makes further submissions founded on the right to self-determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law.....There are insuperable obstacles in the path of the intervener’s argument based on self-determination......A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of
    equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity
    recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international
    law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.”

    89. In our view these observations apply with equal force to the position of
    Scotland and the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
    The SNP really should not have asked that question. It was a very foolish thing to do. For me, it is by far the most significant part of the judgment.

    Which is also interesting as many country constitutions are explicit on the state's territorial integrity - the UK has been remarkably flexible on the matter - something few of our European peers would allow.

    And another bit of our "unwritten constitution" just got written today.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,272
    Mortimer said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    If there is still pressure for another referendum in say 20-30 years time, that would seem to me to be about a generation's time....
    And you're the important one in this as I'm sure we'd all agree.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,657
    Mr. Boy, the irony is that if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, the rest of the UK would almost certainly still be in the EU and Scotland would be outside it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    It was mentioned three times in the Scottish Government's White Paper, and frequently by Salmond and Sturgeon, so to accuse a poster of "fibbing" when it wasn't in one document is a bit off.

    If you've forgotten:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzot3DNeU4
    Not relevant. I said the Edinburgh Agreement.
    Driver never wrote it was in the Edinburgh Agreement - you did that subsequently, then accused them of fibbing.
    In that sense - apologies to Driver, you are right.

    But it is irrelevant if it is not in the document.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    You vote for it in a "once in a generation" referendum. If you fail to do so, you wait a generation.
    You show us where it said that in the Edinburgh Agreement, or stop fibbing.
    In PB world, only the losers have to hold to statements made before elections/referndums, the winners are allowed as much amnesia as they need.



    'On September 7th the BBC broadcast a speech by Mr Brown in which the Labour MP pledged Home Rule if Scotland voted No in the independence referendum.
    A day later, Better Together leader Alistair Darling confirmed in a BBC interview that Devo Max would be offered to Scotland if voters rejected independence.  Devo Max is accepted to mean the devolution of all powers, with the exception of Foreign Affairs and Defence.
    Days after Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling made their pledge, the three leaders of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems signed a vow promising to honour the pledge and grant Scotland significant new powers.'
    Leaving the EU is both a strong justification for Indyref2 and a reason why it will be harder than last time to get Yes above 50%.
    Yes, it has revealed (as if it needed to) how difficult things might get, and shake some less firm supporters. But still potentially starting from a higher point than last time.

    Personally I switched to supporting an IndyRef2 (though I would hope they would say No again) when May went for a GE in 2017 in the middle of supposedly critical times to sort out Brexit. If they could disrupt things with an election it didn't seem unreasonable that a referendum could happen as well.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Mortimer said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    If there is still pressure for another referendum in say 20-30 years time, that would seem to me to be about a generation's time....
    And you're the important one in this as I'm sure we'd all agree.
    I see others are picking up on your question:

    'Serious questions for both sides. For those who are pro independence- what next? The general election idea won’t yield any immediate change. What is the path? And for unionists, what is the answer to the question, the mechanism for how Scotland is supposed to express its will?'

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1595359227345879041?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1595365249049296896|twgr^5f1aba5c45ee6cd2412300011adede86a052a970|twcon^s2_&ref_url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/23143497.live-updates-supreme-court-blocks-scottish-independence-referendum/
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,374

    Mortimer said:

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    If there is still pressure for another referendum in say 20-30 years time, that would seem to me to be about a generation's time....
    And you're the important one in this as I'm sure we'd all agree.
    As the SC ruling has said, my view on this is as significant as yours.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068

    Since all you folks outwith Scotland are so interested in the SC judgment, can any of you sketch out how people living in Scotland decide on continuing membership of this 'voluntary' union (assuming you're still in the big, fat hypocrite camp that considers the UK as such)?

    Just to be clear, no blathering is allowed about having to persuade the creatures you elect in Westminster that we should have another indyref.

    If an advisory referendum or vote where held, where an absolute majority of the Scottish electorate voted for independence- notwithstanding the Unionist boycott - then I think it'd be difficult for Westminster to ignore.

    As it happens it won't come to that because as soon as polling shows that such a vote might clearly be one negotiations would start.

    It's not going anywhere because although the SNP have enough votes to keep winning majorities at Holyrood the dial hasn't shifted.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,936

    Separatist movements across the EU - and in Spain particularly - will be spitting blood that the SNP asked the UK Supreme Court to look at the right to self-determination under international law.

    Notably it was the SNP - not the Advocate General - which advanced this argument:

    The Scottish National Party’s additional arguments: self-determination and the principle of legality

    84. In addition to adopting the submissions made by Lord Advocate in support of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the proposed Bill, the intervener, the Scottish National Party, makes further submissions founded on the right to self-determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law.....There are insuperable obstacles in the path of the intervener’s argument based on self-determination......A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of
    equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity
    recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international
    law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.”

    89. In our view these observations apply with equal force to the position of
    Scotland and the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
    The SNP really should not have asked that question. It was a very foolish thing to do. For me, it is by far the most significant part of the
    judgment.

    Most States now accept, pretty much, that they have a collective interest in respecting current boundaries.

    It’s why Right of Conquest is no longer considered lawful.




  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    pillsbury said:


    Cat Neilan
    @CatNeilan
    Rishi Sunak is said to be on #pmqs damage limitation mode after the weekend's story about a Swiss-style deal put the cat among the pigeons.

    Widely seen as having come from Jeremy Hunt, who is now under pressure to keep his job...

    https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1595119186308902913

    Such larks.

    Under pressure my arse. I think politics watchers have become a bit addicted to resignations and sackings.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,693
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The most significant part of the judgment concerned the right to self-determination under international law. That will have repercussions far beyond the UK.

    Scotland is no colony, it has its own MPs and Parliament, however the Union is reserved to Westminster.

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    Missing the point as always.

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    You ever been to Glasgow's Merchant City?

    Standard grade history was very good at explaining just how important Scotland was for colonising the Empire - whether it was the slave trade or Scots regiments putting down the locals.
Sign In or Register to comment.