What really matters about today's judgment is not that it made a constitutional path to Scottish independence impossible (it didn't), but that in practical terms it made a successful unilateral declaration of independence impossible. No democracy would recognise such a move because no democracy is going to disagree with the UK Supreme Court's interpretation of the right to self-determination under international law.
Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
Shillelaghs? Wrong islands.
I thought my citation of “uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo” would make it clear I was a-jokin’
Nevertheless, there are literary standards. If you make a joke about whisky you don't reference Bushmills.
It was a deliberate mistake. Shillelaghs are Irish. I know this. I was winding malc up by feigning an insolent ignorance of all things Scotch
As the SNP spend today trying to delegitimise their opponents (plus ça change!) remember they don’t really believe that the majority view - that referendums on dissolving a union should be occasional rather than regular - is illegitimate. It was Sturgeon’s position until she lost
Well-worn soundbites from Nicola Sturgeon about how independence is "essential" for "escaping the disaster of Brexit"
Wonder if the First Minister will mention what she's doing today to avert the teacher strikes that are going to close virtually every school in Scotland tomorrow
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
Interesting question. My gut feeling is that they'd be more unionist than the Tories, if that's possible, unless there is a L/R split within the Labour Party that corresponds in some part to the Border. But Labour are pretty right wing these days (Brexit, etc.) That doesn't sit will with trying to attract voters back from the SGs and SNP. Something to watch.
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
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
Nicola Sturgeon's press conference clearly an SNP event, rather than a ScotGov one, with the party's yellow "stronger for Scotland" branding everywhere - underlines that they're essentially using this ruling as a campaign event
What really matters about today's judgment is not that it made a constitutional path to Scottish independence impossible (it didn't), but that in practical terms it made a successful unilateral declaration of independence impossible. No democracy would recognise such a move because no democracy is going to disagree with the UK Supreme Court's interpretation of the right to self-determination under international law.
It would certainly be an awkward situation. We wouldn't like to see scenes such as in Catalonia with people hauled off to prison, but at least as far as international news goes that all seems to have quieted down.
What next? At least two of my daughters have clothes with rainbows on them - would they get banned? What happens if an actual rainbow shows up over Qatar - do they angrily hurl rocks at it? Is Qatar proposing to outlaw any clothing with any colours on it which feature in the rainbow? Utter lunatics.
Nicola Sturgeon says the next UK General Election is now the first opportunity for a "de facto referendum". So, she sticks to her plan of styling election as a referendum. She says it's now "necessary" to give "detail" of how that will work, but says her party must agree this
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
Well, maybe focus on how they are actually being governed, up there in Woke-istan....
Scottish politicians have only paid a passing interest in the job of actually running the country all my adult life. They would far rather wax long and lyrical about constitutional matters. The state of public services up here is replete with examples of the consequences.
If they did though, I think there is considerable mileage for Labour.
"All you'll hear from the SNP for the next fifty years is "Independence! Independence! Independence!" You'll have no engagement from them about the failing state of public services. On their watch, these have collapsed..."
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
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
Nicola Sturgeon says the next UK General Election is now the first opportunity for a "de facto referendum". So, she sticks to her plan of styling election as a referendum. She says it's now "necessary" to give "detail" of how that will work, but says her party must agree this
The thing is with Sturgeon using this speech like a campaigning platform is the refusal to acknowledge any risk with independence. The risk is it heads the way of Brexit if it ever does happen
What happens if at GE2024 the Scot Nats* get fewer than 50% of the vote in Scotland?
Scottish Nationalism killed stone cold for a generation?
*SNP, Green, Alba et al.
Got 46% between them last time, uncomfortably close (I'm assuming Brexit Party and UKIP were anti-independence, but would add 0.5% and 0.1% respectively if not). 51.3% in 2015 (minus other miur parties whose Indy stance I don't know). So definitely achievable.
Presumably if not achieved there'd be a conversion to the idea the MP returns would be most critical. It's hard for the other parties to criticise that when we measure political success by seats not vote percentages, even though in terms of treating it like a referendum the votes would make more sense.
What next? At least two of my daughters have clothes with rainbows on them - would they get banned? What happens if an actual rainbow shows up over Qatar - do they angrily hurl rocks at it? Is Qatar proposing to outlaw any clothing with any colours on it which feature in the rainbow? Utter lunatics.
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
Interesting question. My gut feeling is that they'd be more unionist than the Tories, if that's possible, unless there is a L/R split within the Labour Party that corresponds in some part to the Border. But Labour are pretty right wing these days (Brexit, etc.) That doesn't sit will with trying to attract voters back from the SGs and SNP. Something to watch.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership, creating a state-owned energy company... all very right-wing policies.
Sturgeon won't say what will count as an election mandate - but remarks that "majority support for independence" is what is required - suggests votes, not seats.
What happens if at GE2024 the Scot Nats* get fewer than 50% of the vote in Scotland?
Scottish Nationalism killed stone cold for a generation?
*SNP, Green, Alba et al.
Got 46% between them last time, uncomfortably close (I'm assuming Brexit Party and UKIP were anti-independence, but would add 0.5% and 0.1% respectively if not). 51.3% in 2015 (minus other miur parties whose Indy stance I don't know). So definitely achievable.
Presumably if not achieved there'd be a conversion to the idea the MP returns would be most critical.
I would venture to suggest that with Starmer very strong favourite to win in 24 ending 14 years of conservative rule, then Scotland will be far more likely to want to remain, indeed I expect Starmer to win seats off SNP in 24
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
I agree.
Why not update the Act of Union to put in place a constitutional process for how that Union can end. Address the issue regarding passage of time between votes, provide details of the question that needs to be asked and how the breakup would work. Essentially, we need an Article 50.
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
I agree.
Why not update the Act of Union to put in place a constitutional process for how that Union can end. Address the issue regarding passage of time between votes, provide details of the question that needs to be asked and how the breakup would work. Essentially, we need an Article 50.
Yes I agree. As I said upthread. We need to define “generation”. And give Scotland a mechanism to trigger a vote, once a generation has passed. Then write it into law at Westminster
What happens if at GE2024 the Scot Nats* get fewer than 50% of the vote in Scotland?
Scottish Nationalism killed stone cold for a generation?
*SNP, Green, Alba et al.
Got 46% between them last time, uncomfortably close (I'm assuming Brexit Party and UKIP were anti-independence, but would add 0.5% and 0.1% respectively if not). 51.3% in 2015 (minus other miur parties whose Indy stance I don't know). So definitely achievable.
Presumably if not achieved there'd be a conversion to the idea the MP returns would be most critical.
I would venture to suggest that with Starmer very strong favourite to win in 24 ending 14 years of conservative rule, then Scotland will be far more likely to want to remain, indeed I expect Starmer to win seats off SNP in 24
Could be. At present hard to see how the Tories hold any Scottish seats, as even ones with fairly big majorities have been on strange political journeys, from Lab/LD to SNP to CON within the span of 4 years and 3 elections.
A 2017 style result for Lab without the Tories being entirely wiped out could save some of those currently unionist Tory seats.
Early days I know, but I wouldn't be surprised if today's events in Scotland benefit Labour significantly in the medium term, and increase the likelihood of Labour getting an overall majority at the next GE.
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%.
I don't think this is the killer point that many Scottish nationalists think it is.
A Yes vote in 2014 probably would have led to an early exit from the European Union for Scotland.
You'd then have had a second decision point for rUK in 2016 where it may, or may not, have decided to do the same.
The fact that the second event took place does not mean that the first would not have taken place.
But Scotland would almost certainly be back in the EU by now if it had voted yes in 2014. I'm not sure Cameron's successor would have dared the referendum gamble again in 2016 either.
They would be a member now, yes. And good point about the 2016 EU ref follow up - although maybe whoever the UK PM was would have still called the ref and actually campaigned for Leave to make it up to the Queen. You know, to give her something to 'purr' about having gone and misplaced Scotland.
Sturgeon won't say what will count as an election mandate - but remarks that "majority support for independence" is what is required - suggests votes, not seats.
I disagree slight with Carnyx and DavidL on the last election being a mandate for a referendum. There was some ambiguity over it, and the SNP campaigned on (and were attacked for) plenty of other issues.
One thing is for certain - if they lose this defacto GE referendum, there will be a call for a "real" referendum about 2 second later.
His case seems to be Sturgeon should have done all this much sooner, as people would have voted in favour of Sindy before the damaging effects of Brexit occurred, and before we entered difficult economic times, but might not otherwise (though he doesn't rule it out).
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 believe in para 30"... Spoken like a man of real principle.
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
Yes for hardcore Nats Sturgeon may now be Theresa May after her Brexit delays after that speech.
Hard to see Salmond not preparing a Farage like response
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
Interesting question. My gut feeling is that they'd be more unionist than the Tories, if that's possible, unless there is a L/R split within the Labour Party that corresponds in some part to the Border. But Labour are pretty right wing these days (Brexit, etc.) That doesn't sit will with trying to attract voters back from the SGs and SNP. Something to watch.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership, creating a state-owned energy company... all very right-wing policies.
Oh? I thought the Tories were doijng that sort of thing a lot in the last few years. Rail infrastructiure and operations, both.
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
I agree.
Why not update the Act of Union to put in place a constitutional process for how that Union can end. Address the issue regarding passage of time between votes, provide details of the question that needs to be asked and how the breakup would work. Essentially, we need an Article 50.
Yes I agree. As I said upthread. We need to define “generation”. And give Scotland a mechanism to trigger a vote, once a generation has passed. Then write it into law at Westminster
Misses the point completely. New decisions made without consent by Scotland. You'd need a refertendum on those, in Scotland.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Sturgeon won't say what will count as an election mandate - but remarks that "majority support for independence" is what is required - suggests votes, not seats.
I disagree slight with Carnyx and DavidL on the last election being a mandate for a referendum. There was some ambiguity over it, and the SNP campaigned on (and were attacked for) plenty of other issues.
One thing is for certain - if they lose this defacto GE referendum, there will be a call for a "real" referendum about 2 second later.
It was in the manifesto, which is generally regarded as sufficient for all parties, unless one is an unionist talking about Sindy.
She's Robert Lundy and Benedict Arnold rolled into one.
Nah, a pound shop Arthur Donaldson.
I don't know if you know what you are saying. Have a look at the history of Mr Donaldson, and compare him with Unionists such as Artchibald Ramsay.
Captain Ramsay, upon release from prison in 1944, proposed in the Commons to restore the Statute of Jewry, 1290. He was the looniest MP of the 20th century.
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
Not quite so. The question is whether you take her at her word. See my earlier response to one of our reluctant fellow countrymen early in this thread:
"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."
Sturgeon will still be pursuing points 1, 2 and 3. Point 3 was to not level with Scots about the constitutional chaos at Westminster that she intends to cause, because if she did it would undermine the ability to achieve points 1 and 2. That's perfectly consistent with her statement today.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take.
Whilst I'm personally supportive of them getting a referendum, though not its success, the granting of one in 2014 is highly significant, since it cannot be argued that the UK government will never grant such a thing (even if they might say it), as demonstrably it has once before. As such the lack of a standing constitutional framework, whilst probably a good thing to call for, cannot be presented as the only way it could ever happen, and instead arguments can run on as long as practically possible about what a generation means and so on.
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
Come off it. We are as we were. The GE plan now proceeds as the precalculated next step - to add to the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to grant a legal Sindy vote - after the (expected) loss today in the SC. It's all about building that pressure. There's no unilateral legal route to independence so this is the only way. And as you build the pressure to get a vote you at the same time build enough support to win it. That's the plan. Was yesterday, is today, will be tomorrow. To detect Sturgeon "folding" is pure wish-casting.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
And, quite probably, resolving the major questions of separation before the referendum is held.
What next? At least two of my daughters have clothes with rainbows on them - would they get banned? What happens if an actual rainbow shows up over Qatar - do they angrily hurl rocks at it? Is Qatar proposing to outlaw any clothing with any colours on it which feature in the rainbow? Utter lunatics.
Imagine what they think of the gay teletubby?
It's lucky for them the Seychelles didn't qualify.
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
Well, maybe focus on how they are actually being governed, up there in Woke-istan....
Scottish politicians have only paid a passing interest in the job of actually running the country all my adult life. They would far rather wax long and lyrical about constitutional matters. The state of public services up here is replete with examples of the consequences.
If they did though, I think there is considerable mileage for Labour.
"All you'll hear from the SNP for the next fifty years is "Independence! Independence! Independence!" You'll have no engagement from them about the failing state of public services. On their watch, these have collapsed..."
The Barnett formula isn't going to give a non-SNP Holyrood adminstration any more money than it gives an SNP one.
Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
Shillelaghs? Wrong islands.
I thought my citation of “uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo” would make it clear I was a-jokin’
Nevertheless, there are literary standards. If you make a joke about whisky you don't reference Bushmills.
It was a deliberate mistake. Shillelaghs are Irish. I know this. I was winding malc up by feigning an insolent ignorance of all things Scotch
They say you should never explain a joke. But sometimes explanations add further savour to it.
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
I agree.
Why not update the Act of Union to put in place a constitutional process for how that Union can end. Address the issue regarding passage of time between votes, provide details of the question that needs to be asked and how the breakup would work. Essentially, we need an Article 50.
Yes I agree. As I said upthread. We need to define “generation”. And give Scotland a mechanism to trigger a vote, once a generation has passed. Then write it into law at Westminster
Misses the point completely. New decisions made without consent by Scotland. You'd need a refertendum on those, in Scotland.
But what does that mean in practice? Any policy by the UK government can only be made with a majority of Scottish MP's too?
This judgement makes it more important, not less, that any U.K. Government provides for a referendum if supported by a clear majority of MPs at Hollyrood. Anything else is just morally indefensible.
Sturgeon's response seems a bit weak to me. I'd have thought she'd have gamed out something stronger given the likely outcome of the case.
She generally seems a cautious character to me, always feels time is on her side and she can take her time.
Politics can be brutal - you think you are at the peak of your powers and within hours or days you can be gone. See Truss for most recent example, or further back May, or even Johnson around Oct 2021.
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
I agree.
Why not update the Act of Union to put in place a constitutional process for how that Union can end. Address the issue regarding passage of time between votes, provide details of the question that needs to be asked and how the breakup would work. Essentially, we need an Article 50.
Yes I agree. As I said upthread. We need to define “generation”. And give Scotland a mechanism to trigger a vote, once a generation has passed. Then write it into law at Westminster
Misses the point completely. New decisions made without consent by Scotland. You'd need a refertendum on those, in Scotland.
It would have to be agreed to by all parties - Inc SNP - then written into Westminster Law
Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
Shillelaghs? Wrong islands.
I thought my citation of “uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo” would make it clear I was a-jokin’
Nevertheless, there are literary standards. If you make a joke about whisky you don't reference Bushmills.
It was a deliberate mistake. Shillelaghs are Irish. I know this. I was winding malc up by feigning an insolent ignorance of all things Scotch
They say you should never explain a joke. But sometimes explanations add further savour to it.
Just not up to his usual standards of elegance, and the Shillelagh simply jarred.
Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
Shillelaghs? Wrong islands.
I thought my citation of “uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo” would make it clear I was a-jokin’
Nevertheless, there are literary standards. If you make a joke about whisky you don't reference Bushmills.
It was a deliberate mistake. Shillelaghs are Irish. I know this. I was winding malc up by feigning an insolent ignorance of all things Scotch
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
Well, maybe focus on how they are actually being governed, up there in Woke-istan....
Scottish politicians have only paid a passing interest in the job of actually running the country all my adult life. They would far rather wax long and lyrical about constitutional matters. The state of public services up here is replete with examples of the consequences.
If they did though, I think there is considerable mileage for Labour.
"All you'll hear from the SNP for the next fifty years is "Independence! Independence! Independence!" You'll have no engagement from them about the failing state of public services. On their watch, these have collapsed..."
The Barnett formula isn't going to give a non-SNP Holyrood adminstration any more money than it gives an SNP one.
The way it is spent - efficiently, not on woke pet projects - is ever more important when faced with that....
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
Well, maybe focus on how they are actually being governed, up there in Woke-istan....
Scottish politicians have only paid a passing interest in the job of actually running the country all my adult life. They would far rather wax long and lyrical about constitutional matters. The state of public services up here is replete with examples of the consequences.
If they did though, I think there is considerable mileage for Labour.
"All you'll hear from the SNP for the next fifty years is "Independence! Independence! Independence!" You'll have no engagement from them about the failing state of public services. On their watch, these have collapsed..."
The Barnett formula isn't going to give a non-SNP Holyrood adminstration any more money than it gives an SNP one.
The way it is spent - efficiently, not on woke pet projects - is ever more important when faced with that....
The bridge to NI being an un-woke pet project, presumably.
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
Come off it. We are as we were. The GE plan now proceeds as the precalculated next step - to add to the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to grant a legal Sindy vote - after the (expected) loss today in the SC. It's all about building that pressure. There's no unilateral legal route to independence so this is the only way. And as you build the pressure to get a vote you at the same time build enough support to win it. That's the plan. Was yesterday, is today, will be tomorrow. To detect Sturgeon "folding" is pure wish-casting.
No, it's not. As others have said, that was a weak response by Sturgeon. She even sounds like she is backtracking on the "de facto referendum" election nonsense
She must have expected this rebuff, so she had to time to prepare her reply. And yet - nothing. "A conference next year". WTF?
If she hasn't run out of road she can certainly see the garages at the end of the cul de sac. And maybe a new career for her, over the garden fence
The alternative explanation is that she really did NOT expect such a firm rejection by the SCUK. And it threw her
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
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
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*
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?
A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal , Try harder loser
I think he has somewhat more connection with Scotland than merely being born there.
Reed was Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Education Department from 1988 to 1989, and to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department from 1989 to 1995. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1995, and Advocate Depute in 1996. He was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the country's College of Justice, in 1998, with the judicial title, Lord Reed. He sat initially as a Judge of the Outer House, becoming Principal Commercial Judge in 2006...He was promoted to the Inner House (First Division) in 2008
His Scottishness may not affect your view of the Court or the decision, but you're surely not saying he is not a true scotsman?
I am saying he is part of an English court making a decision on Scottish Law that should be done by the Court of Session in Scotland, I care not a jot what his nationality is and fact he is Scottish does not make it valid..
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
Well, maybe focus on how they are actually being governed, up there in Woke-istan....
Scottish politicians have only paid a passing interest in the job of actually running the country all my adult life. They would far rather wax long and lyrical about constitutional matters. The state of public services up here is replete with examples of the consequences.
If they did though, I think there is considerable mileage for Labour.
"All you'll hear from the SNP for the next fifty years is "Independence! Independence! Independence!" You'll have no engagement from them about the failing state of public services. On their watch, these have collapsed..."
The Barnett formula isn't going to give a non-SNP Holyrood adminstration any more money than it gives an SNP one.
The way it is spent - efficiently, not on woke pet projects - is ever more important when faced with that....
The bridge to NI being an un-woke pet project, presumably.
Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
I'd have thought the opposition would support Clarke's amendment - can he find a base amongst backbenchers to force the Gov't to move on it ?
Exceptionally it's actually an amendment that has a practical purpose rather than the normal transparently anti-gov't maneouvering by disgruntled backbenchers.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
Come off it. We are as we were. The GE plan now proceeds as the precalculated next step - to add to the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to grant a legal Sindy vote - after the (expected) loss today in the SC. It's all about building that pressure. There's no unilateral legal route to independence so this is the only way. And as you build the pressure to get a vote you at the same time build enough support to win it. That's the plan. Was yesterday, is today, will be tomorrow. To detect Sturgeon "folding" is pure wish-casting.
No, it's not. As others have said, that was a weak response by Sturgeon. She even sounds like she is backtracking of the "de facto referendum" election nonsense
She must have expected this rebuff, so she had to time to prepare her reply. And yet - nothing. "A conference next year". WTF?
If she hasn't run out of road she can certainly see the garages at the end of the cul de sac. And maybe a new career for her, over the garden fence
The alternative explanation is that she really did NOT expect such a firm rejection by the SCUK. And it threw her
As brexit has shown, there is a huge danger in winning. Before the vote, you could blame everything on the EU. Not so now. Scottish independence works for the SNP right now. Its the foundation myth, the defining touchstone. Woe betide them if they ever won that independence - voters might realise that they are just as bad as all the other parties at actually running a country...
I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
And then?
You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied
But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence
Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK
It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one
If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed
I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
I agree.
Why not update the Act of Union to put in place a constitutional process for how that Union can end. Address the issue regarding passage of time between votes, provide details of the question that needs to be asked and how the breakup would work. Essentially, we need an Article 50.
Yes I agree. As I said upthread. We need to define “generation”. And give Scotland a mechanism to trigger a vote, once a generation has passed. Then write it into law at Westminster
Oh do stop it. No way do you try and code "a generation" into law. Does Article 50 have that? Course not. You just have to trust in that thing you define so purely and revere so much it even made our EU membership unbearable for you. Democracy.
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
Come off it. We are as we were. The GE plan now proceeds as the precalculated next step - to add to the moral and democratic pressure on the UKG to grant a legal Sindy vote - after the (expected) loss today in the SC. It's all about building that pressure. There's no unilateral legal route to independence so this is the only way. And as you build the pressure to get a vote you at the same time build enough support to win it. That's the plan. Was yesterday, is today, will be tomorrow. To detect Sturgeon "folding" is pure wish-casting.
No, it's not. As others have said, that was a weak response by Sturgeon. She even sounds like she is backtracking on the "de facto referendum" election nonsense
She must have expected this rebuff, so she had to time to prepare her reply. And yet - nothing. "A conference next year". WTF?
If she hasn't run out of road she can certainly see the garages at the end of the cul de sac. And maybe a new career for her, over the garden fence
The alternative explanation is that she really did NOT expect such a firm rejection by the SCUK. And it threw her
The result was a given , she can see the end of the road, she better get her woke Global charity/ UN job soon or she is toast. Though she will not be short of money even if on scrapheap. Heading for Toom Tabard status nowadays.
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
She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
Because having voted No again the Scottish people - or rather not enough of them - will want to keep this at the forefront of their politics. I find it odd that people don't see this. It implies a cartoon jaundiced view of the Scots.
You don't think that close to 40% will want a third referendum?
That's right. If they hold a 2nd Referendum and vote No again, then the SNP come along at the Holyrood election saying "vote for us, get yet another Sindy Referendum" they will not win that election. They'll lose power. This will remain the case for quite some time. Nicola Sturgeon knows this. Hence the size of the task she faces.
If they lose by a narrower margin, it'll be "one more heave".
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
After all this time to prepare for an obvious Supreme Court ruling, Nicola Sturgeon still cannot be definitive about the nature and terms of the "de facto" referendum, pushing it to a party conference in the New year. Incredible.
What really matters about today's judgment is not that it made a constitutional path to Scottish independence impossible (it didn't), but that in practical terms it made a successful unilateral declaration of independence impossible. No democracy would recognise such a move because no democracy is going to disagree with the UK Supreme Court's interpretation of the right to self-determination under international law.
Whether a UDI ultimately succeeds would* imo be more down to how much support it has in Scotland than to any ruling by the UK Supreme Court.
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
No, for many reasons. But here is at least one. A vote for Scottish independence, if it succeeds, will have momentous implications for the stability and economy of the rest of the UK. There would almost certainly be a deep recession in rUK, a depression in Scotland, and a flight of capital out of Scotland and maybe out of rUK
Northern Ireland would be further rocked. And so on. And Scotland could easily go bankrupt immediately and they would be using the £ so it impacts us that way. On and on. Plus defence, pensions, the rest
So no, the Scots can't have a referendum twice a year, even if you think that is democratically noble. These matters are rightly reserved to Westminster where all four UK nations have a democratic say - including Scotland. Westminster has rightly decided that Scottish referendums CAN be allowed, but because they are so profound in implications, and so seismic, they can only happen rarely. Once every 25 years. Something like that
A de facto GE referendum isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference because even if the SNP managed to get over 50% of the vote in a GE the answer from Westminster can still be “no.”
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
Yes, quite. But the Nats will have to accept they don't get a referendum whenever they want, and not even if they win at Holyrood. In return, Westminster will provide the trigger that cannot be denied
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
Quite the opposite. Have a vote whenever the majority in Hollyrood wants one. Twice a year if they life. If the answer keeps being “no” then let the voters conclude (or not) that the SNP is taking the piss and they ought to elect someone else. All these decisions are for the Scots to take.
No. People and businesses need to have confidence that they can plan their lives or organisations without the risk of major constitutional change intervening at short intervals. There is an argument for how long that interval should be, but it patently can’t be whenever MSPs feel like it.
If Labour promises to give Scotland another referendum, that might just seal the deal with the English.
Labour should seriously holding a Referendum in Scotland worded on the lines of 'Do you wish Scotland to remain part of the UK?'. Westminster would have the authority to do that.
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.
A referendum approximately every generation (say 20 years) is a reasonable balance between the rights of the supporters of independence to have a choice and the rights of the (current) majority to enjoy being part of the Union without someone causing ructions and uncertainty the whole time.
You voted. You lost. That isn’t for ever, but it’s for more than a few years.
Comments
Con: 26% (+1 from 9-10 Nov)
Lab: 47% (-1)
Lib Dem: 9% (-1)
Reform UK: 6% (+1)
Green: 5% (=)
SNP: 5% (=)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/11/23/voting-intention-con-26-lab-47-15-16-nov-2022 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1595381346947534850/photo/1
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1595371046101729282
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595381355453505542
If not isn't it just meaningless guff? Russia wages warfare by war crime, but we must still trade with them....
Wonder if the First Minister will mention what she's doing today to avert the teacher strikes that are going to close virtually every school in Scotland tomorrow
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1595381808451182599
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-thief-of-time/
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1595380760525115393
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/journalist-has-phone-seized-in-qatar-after-flag-mistaken-for-lgbtq-banner/ar-AA14qvOS?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=a0829840fa9c4c35809fd270b9a5d8ea
What next? At least two of my daughters have clothes with rainbows on them - would they get banned? What happens if an actual rainbow shows up over Qatar - do they angrily hurl rocks at it? Is Qatar proposing to outlaw any clothing with any colours on it which feature in the rainbow?
Utter lunatics.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1595383397152657414
"All you'll hear from the SNP for the next fifty years is "Independence! Independence! Independence!" You'll have no engagement from them about the failing state of public services. On their watch, these have collapsed..."
Presumably if not achieved there'd be a conversion to the idea the MP returns would be most critical. It's hard for the other parties to criticise that when we measure political success by seats not vote percentages, even though in terms of treating it like a referendum the votes would make more sense.
Tells me: "If we're going to have some anti-growth amendments on the bill we might as well have some pro-growth ones too"
https://twitter.com/lara_spirit/status/1595382904753950720
“She says she will not give up on seeking a vote on independence. The next vote is the general election, and there is an obvious opportunity to treat that as a de facto referendum on independence.
She says no party can tell people on what basis they should cast their vote.”
(Guardian)
She’s admitting the “de facto referendum in an election” won’t fly. Because you won’t actually know if voters are saying YES or voting SNP because they hate the stupid face of Anas Sarwar or because they want more bus stops in Brechin
So that’s it, I think. She’s run out of road
Why not update the Act of Union to put in place a constitutional process for how that Union can end. Address the issue regarding passage of time between votes, provide details of the question that needs to be asked and how the breakup would work. Essentially, we need an Article 50.
A 2017 style result for Lab without the Tories being entirely wiped out could save some of those currently unionist Tory seats.
One thing is for certain - if they lose this defacto GE referendum, there will be a call for a "real" referendum about 2 second later.
Spoken like a man of real principle.
Hard to see Salmond not preparing a Farage like response
Edit: and finally he tells Starmer to finish as well.
Scotland can only legally secede from the Union via an agreement with the Westminster parliament. Todays ruling is clear.
So the SNP need to work on getting the UK government to agree to introduce a constitutional framework for leaving the Union and writing that mechanism into UK legislation. There is a deal to be done there, I think, but the SNP will need to acknowledge that there will be give and take. That might mean, for instance, long intervals between votes, and votes only being triggered by formal request of a majority of the Scottish parliament, or similar.
"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."
Sturgeon will still be pursuing points 1, 2 and 3. Point 3 was to not level with Scots about the constitutional chaos at Westminster that she intends to cause, because if she did it would undermine the ability to achieve points 1 and 2. That's perfectly consistent with her statement today.
She must have expected this rebuff, so she had to time to prepare her reply. And yet - nothing. "A conference next year". WTF?
If she hasn't run out of road she can certainly see the garages at the end of the cul de sac. And maybe a new career for her, over the garden fence
The alternative explanation is that she really did NOT expect such a firm rejection by the SCUK. And it threw her
Exceptionally it's actually an amendment that has a practical purpose rather than the normal transparently anti-gov't maneouvering by disgruntled backbenchers.
A generation must have MEANING. 25-30 years? Then, when that has elapsed, if a majority of MSPs say Give us a vote, Westminster cannot deny it
🤐
What is the route?
It is not the same as electing a government on a manifesto of actions
https://twitter.com/Jonathon_Shafi/status/1595385855144824832
* in any case it's a Not Happening Event.
Northern Ireland would be further rocked. And so on. And Scotland could easily go bankrupt immediately and they would be using the £ so it impacts us that way. On and on. Plus defence, pensions, the rest
So no, the Scots can't have a referendum twice a year, even if you think that is democratically noble. These matters are rightly reserved to Westminster where all four UK nations have a democratic say - including Scotland. Westminster has rightly decided that Scottish referendums CAN be allowed, but because they are so profound in implications, and so seismic, they can only happen rarely. Once every 25 years. Something like that
You voted. You lost. That isn’t for ever, but it’s for more than a few years.