Why the Scottish Independence debate is not over – politicalbetting.com

System

Why the Scottish Independence debate is not over – politicalbetting.com

The UK Supreme Court judgement that the Scottish Parliament does not have the right tohold a referendum on independence because it is a ‘reserved matter’ to Westminster maynot have been a surprise, but this was still a landmark day for Scotland, independence andthe UK.

Read the full story here

Balrog

1st?

MoonRabbit

Balrog said:

1st?

I've just seen a face
I can't forget the time or place where we first met
I am a Balrog,
He was just a beardless Istari you bet
Rah rah rah rah-rah rah

He came into by smoking room
And called me names like Flame of Udûn
I failed to see the joke, I burned his bridge
But then it broke too soon
Ahhhh...

Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me
Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me

I got him with my whip
I made the daft old mongrel slip
He grabbed on to my mane
And now we're going down in flames, bad trip
Ow ow ow ow-ow ow

What a palaver
He beat seven shades of lava out of me
This freefall free-for-all
Is sapping all my flammability
Ow ow ow ow-ow ow

Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me
Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me

I've done some silly things
But that's the price that evil brings
And though I'm ages old,
I wish someone had told me I had wings
Ow flap ow flap-flap ow

Long I fell and he fell too
He tried to tell me what to do
When he said “fly you fool”,
You see he meant it just for me, not you
Ow, flap, ow, flap-flap splash

Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me
Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me

Through the caverns
To the top of Caradhras, you bet your life we stopped
That's not the tiring bit,
It's having too say “tag you're it” non-stop
Neah neah neah neah-neah neah

I could have had him beat,
But somehow he can stand the heat
I could have taken him
Except he had a magic ring, the cheat!
Raaah grrrrr raah

Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me
Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me

I've ranted and I've roared
I wish I'd stayed back with my hoard
I thank the evil lord
This wizard doesn't wield an elven sw-
Ooor! Falling... urh oh ow ... no no no... Ow Argh Arrgh

HYUFD

What the SC ruling does make clear however is that, unlike the first independence referendum, the second will almost certainly not take place under a Conservative led government. By upholding that there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent the SC prevented Sturgeon holding a referendum next year with this Tory government opposed to indyref2.

So on current polls it will almost certainly be a Labour government which has to decide whether to grant an indyref2 or not. A decision to grant one would probably be likely if a Labour minority government reliant on SNP support or an SNP and nationalist majority again after the next Holyrood elections.

If there is to be another referendum it will therefore be Starmer not Sunak who decides to allow it and Starmer's problem then to win it if he grants it. That will almost certainly include a Gordon Brown led grand new Federal settlement for the UK plus devomax for Scots

IanB2

The big question is whether holding out for longer influences the outcome. It very well might. In which case the likes of HY need to consider whether winning a battle might lose the war.

ydoethur

An interesting article, but what on earth happened to the formatting?

JosiasJessop

Lots of hilarity here at Jessop Towers over the BBC getting itself all in a muddle over that most controversial of programs, "Brain of Britain".

https://twitter.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1595003565646532615

Theuniondivvie

‘In hock’, not ‘in hawk’.

Stuartinromford

IanB2 said:

The big question is whether holding out for longer influences the outcome. It very well might. In which case the likes of HY need to consider whether winning a battle might lose the war.

Very possibly, but the unofficial motto of the Conservative Party right now is "don't worry about the future, it'll see me out".

(See housing, investment, infrastructure, shape of Brexit...)

ydoethur

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

IanB2

Storming wins from the Tories by the LibDems on the IOW and Labour in Bassetlaw, both previously safe Tory wards. In the Warrington local by-election the Tory held on by three votes.

Isle of White UA, Brighstone, Calbourne & Shalfleet

Lib Dem 526
Con 239
Green 153
Vectis 36
Labour 31

Lib Dem GAIN from Conservative!

Bassetlaw DC, Sutton

Labour 301
Tory 224
Lib Dem 12

Labour GAIN from Con

Dura_Ace

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

IanB2

Note the tiny votes for Labour in the IOW seat and for the LDs in the Bassetlaw seat - voters doing well to work out who the likely winner will be.

Pulpstar

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

SCOTUK judgement makes no reference to any "generation".
Scotland could continually vote the SNP in on a mandate of independence and the UK parliament could continually refuse the request.
The worst part of the judgement is that it infers referenda in general have a pseudo-legal power that was never the case before this judgement.
The only route available to Scottish independence now to my mind is now much more drastic should the demos of Scotland wish it.
Westminster boycotts and abandoning potentially the crown are on the table now - but I think if Labour are elected appetite for the new higher bar independence will wane.
Sturgeon is probably gone before Starmer as leader imv.
The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

ydoethur

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was in the Edinburgh agreement that it would be a ‘decisive expression of public opinion.’ Which is why Salmond repeatedly described it as ‘once in a generation’ e.g. at the campaign launch.

But it would have been much better to say, ‘no further application for a Section 30 order will be considered for X years.’

Edit - with hindsight arguably the SNP were the ones who made the error, as if they had asked for a ten year hiatus they would surely have got it, and they would now have a pretty much unanswerable case for a second referendum next year.

But their fingers crossed attitude and their apparently entirely sincere belief the referendum would lead to an enormous upsurge in support for independence which would mean they would quickly get it led them to miss a trick.

IanB2

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

Pulpstar

IanB2 said:

Note the tiny votes for Labour in the IOW seat and for the LDs in the Bassetlaw seat - voters doing well to work out who the likely winner will be.

The Bassetlaw result is really good for Labour. A very rural ward never gained by Labour before. Typically 60+% Tory vote.

Dura_Ace

ydoethur said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was in the Edinburgh agreement that it would be a ‘decisive expression of public opinion.’ Which is why Salmond repeatedly described it as ‘once in a generation’ e.g. at the campaign launch.

But it would have been much better to say, ‘no further application for a Section 30 order will be considered for X years.’

If was Salmond saying it eight years ago then it doesn't mean shit, does it?

IanB2

Pulpstar said:

IanB2 said:

Note the tiny votes for Labour in the IOW seat and for the LDs in the Bassetlaw seat - voters doing well to work out who the likely winner will be.

The Bassetlaw result is really good for Labour. A very rural ward never gained by Labour before. Typically 60+% Tory vote.

Similarly in the IOW for the LibDems - a safe rural Tory seat in the west of the island, previously (prior to some boundary shuffling) represented by the now Tory MP for the IOW. Doubtless helped along by the previous councillor (and previous Tory Group Leader on the council) having thrown in both his Tory membership and his seat during those long days of the Truss premiership.

ydoethur

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was in the Edinburgh agreement that it would be a ‘decisive expression of public opinion.’ Which is why Salmond repeatedly described it as ‘once in a generation’ e.g. at the campaign launch.

But it would have been much better to say, ‘no further application for a Section 30 order will be considered for X years.’

If was Salmond saying it eight years ago then it doesn't mean shit, does it?

We still have doors slammed in people’s faces because of the actions of King Charles I in 1642. Actions even if not written down have meaning in our uncodified constitution.

Put it this way, he would have been better off not saying it.

DavidL

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

algarkirk

Thank you. What an interesting article. The SC judgement - which was more or less inevitable given the Scotland Act and elementary common sense application of words - makes no difference.

Two obstacles remain, which are gigantic. In ascending order they are:

There is a very recent referendum already on the record, the result of which was clear.

Current polling gives no indication at all of the sort of preponderance of opinion to justify as further one so soon, or indeed at all.

Scottish politics and polling will continue, and perhaps things will change.

Here is a compromise: Labour win in 2024. Referendum to join EFTA/EEA for the whole of the UK. Join. Reset. Debate can then continue without the Gretna SM border question. Brexit is still honoured. Sanity prevails.

Theuniondivvie

The normally noisy Lady Mone has broken her 11 month twitter silence with a prime piece of livelaughlove-ology. I shall stop believing what I think this instant.

Stuartinromford

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

eek

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

With hindsight they were right, the chance hasn’t come again soon.

I don’t see how Sunak can offer a date beyond the next election unless he has agreed it with Starmer. Otherwise the SNP will just accuse him of lying on the grounds it won’t be his decision by then.

You are also right about the democratic will of the Scottish people, and how it is being ignored, but unfortunately the whole way this has been set up means that actually doesn’t count. Perhaps something else for politicians to ponder when they start setting up such agreements.

ydoethur

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

So did Sunak, of course.

BlancheLivermore

557. If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?

The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.

It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/pages/15/

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

With hindsight they were right, the chance hasn’t come again soon.

I don’t see how Sunak can offer a date beyond the next election unless he has agreed it with Starmer. Otherwise the SNP will just accuse him of lying on the grounds it won’t be his decision by then.

You are also right about the democratic will of the Scottish people, and how it is being ignored, but unfortunately the whole way this has been set up means that actually doesn’t count. Perhaps something else for politicians to ponder when they start setting up such agreements.

I agree that he should consult Starmer on this but the reality is that if the s30 consent is given then it would be impossible for the UK government to change its mind (at least in practical terms, if not in theory).

Stuartinromford

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

There's a genuine problem there for the blue team.

There are bright students and working-age people prepared to support the Conservatives, but by golly they're thin on the ground at the moment. And a lot of the issues turning them away look fundamental, not temporary.

And whilst can win elections just with support of the elderly, you do need a certain number to bright working-age people to make a party function.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

With hindsight they were right, the chance hasn’t come again soon.

I don’t see how Sunak can offer a date beyond the next election unless he has agreed it with Starmer. Otherwise the SNP will just accuse him of lying on the grounds it won’t be his decision by then.

You are also right about the democratic will of the Scottish people, and how it is being ignored, but unfortunately the whole way this has been set up means that actually doesn’t count. Perhaps something else for politicians to ponder when they start setting up such agreements.

I agree that he should consult Starmer on this but the reality is that if the s30 consent is given then it would be impossible for the UK government to change its mind (at least in practical terms, if not in theory).

I can. 2026 is beyond (well, the date of) the next Scottish Parliament elections as well.

Starmer: ‘This parliament didn’t request it, I didn’t approve it. It’s hereby repealed.’

I think it would have to be something like ‘2027, if a majority of that new Parliament votes to ask for one’ in your scenario.

Which would be the very thing you’re trying to avoid - ignoring the mandate of this one.

DavidL

Theuniondivvie said:

The normally noisy Lady Mone has broken her 11 month twitter silence with a prime piece of livelaughlove-ology. I shall stop believing what I think this instant.

How can you not believe what you think? You may not be completely confident about it but you clearly "believe" it.

ydoethur

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

There's a genuine problem there for the blue team.

There are bright students and working-age people prepared to support the Conservatives, but by golly they're thin on the ground at the moment. And a lot of the issues turning them away look fundamental, not temporary.

And whilst can win elections just with support of the elderly, you do need a certain number to bright working-age people to make a party function.

students always liven up a party?

Although TBF @Leon could probably teach them a thing or two…

ydoethur

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The normally noisy Lady Mone has broken her 11 month twitter silence with a prime piece of livelaughlove-ology. I shall stop believing what I think this instant.

How can you not believe what you think? You may not be completely confident about it but you clearly "believe" it.

Although in her case it’s actually quite sound advice given how much rubbish she thinks.

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

With hindsight they were right, the chance hasn’t come again soon.

I don’t see how Sunak can offer a date beyond the next election unless he has agreed it with Starmer. Otherwise the SNP will just accuse him of lying on the grounds it won’t be his decision by then.

You are also right about the democratic will of the Scottish people, and how it is being ignored, but unfortunately the whole way this has been set up means that actually doesn’t count. Perhaps something else for politicians to ponder when they start setting up such agreements.

I agree that he should consult Starmer on this but the reality is that if the s30 consent is given then it would be impossible for the UK government to change its mind (at least in practical terms, if not in theory).

I can. 2026 is beyond (well, the date of) the next Scottish Parliament elections as well.

Starmer: ‘This parliament didn’t request it, I didn’t approve it. It’s hereby repealed.’

I think it would have to be something like ‘2027, if a majority of that new Parliament votes to ask for one’ in your scenario.

Which would be the very thing you’re trying to avoid - ignoring the mandate of this one.

But once the UK government gave its consent the Scottish Parliament would legislate for it and the SC decision is equally clear that it would be competent to do so. How would Starmer actually stop the implementation of the Scottish Act? Short of repealing the Scotland Act in its entirety he couldn't.

JosiasJessop

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The normally noisy Lady Mone has broken her 11 month twitter silence with a prime piece of livelaughlove-ology. I shall stop believing what I think this instant.

How can you not believe what you think? You may not be completely confident about it but you clearly "believe" it.

Easily - ask any fiction writer. You can think up a story, but not believe it. You 'think' dreams, but hopefully do not believe them. I can think up the answer to a problem, but not 'believe' is is the best, or correct, answer.

Except SeanT. He seems to believe everything he writes....

ydoethur

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

With hindsight they were right, the chance hasn’t come again soon.

I don’t see how Sunak can offer a date beyond the next election unless he has agreed it with Starmer. Otherwise the SNP will just accuse him of lying on the grounds it won’t be his decision by then.

You are also right about the democratic will of the Scottish people, and how it is being ignored, but unfortunately the whole way this has been set up means that actually doesn’t count. Perhaps something else for politicians to ponder when they start setting up such agreements.

I agree that he should consult Starmer on this but the reality is that if the s30 consent is given then it would be impossible for the UK government to change its mind (at least in practical terms, if not in theory).

I can. 2026 is beyond (well, the date of) the next Scottish Parliament elections as well.

Starmer: ‘This parliament didn’t request it, I didn’t approve it. It’s hereby repealed.’

I think it would have to be something like ‘2027, if a majority of that new Parliament votes to ask for one’ in your scenario.

Which would be the very thing you’re trying to avoid - ignoring the mandate of this one.

But once the UK government gave its consent the Scottish Parliament would legislate for it and the SC decision is equally clear that it would be competent to do so. How would Starmer actually stop the implementation of the Scottish Act? Short of repealing the Scotland Act in its entirety he couldn't.

Isn’t the actual date a matter for the SP once the order has been granted?

So it could only be a pledge, rather than a full order, in the scenario you outline?

If I’m wrong, please correct me, but that’s my understanding.

Edit - on that subject, another poster is still trying to lecture me on the new National Institute for Teaching which he doesn’t understand but thinks he’s an expert on. There’s another one who shouldn’t believe everything he thinks…

HYUFD

IanB2 said:

The big question is whether holding out for longer influences the outcome. It very well might. In which case the likes of HY need to consider whether winning a battle might lose the war.

The opposite, Scots are more likely to vote Yes next year under a Tory government than in 2026/27 say under a likely Labour government.

Plus even Canada waited 15 years until its second referendum was allowed not just 8 years and No still narrowly won

IanB2

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?

ydoethur

This is going to be bad:

Nurses to strike for two days before Christmas
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63746334

IanB2

OT, from the Economist:

A 10% rise in electricity prices is associated with a 0.6% increase in deaths, concentrated among the elderly and infirm. If the historical relationships between mortality, weather and energy costs continue to apply—which they may not, given how high current prices are—the death toll from the energy weapon could exceed the number of soldiers who have died so far in direct combat from bullets, shells, missiles and drones. It is one more reason why Ukraine’s fight against Russia is Europe’s, too.

ydoethur

IanB2 said:

OT, from the Economist:

A 10% rise in electricity prices is associated with a 0.6% increase in deaths, concentrated among the elderly and infirm. If the historical relationships between mortality, weather and energy costs continue to apply—which they may not, given how high current prices are—the death toll from the energy weapon could exceed the number of soldiers who have died so far in direct combat from bullets, shells, missiles and drones. It is one more reason why Ukraine’s fight against Russia is Europe’s, too.

It must have been a good thread header. Surely that’s a record for PB before going off-topic?

eek

IanB2 said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?

A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.

dixiedean

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The normally noisy Lady Mone has broken her 11 month twitter silence with a prime piece of livelaughlove-ology. I shall stop believing what I think this instant.

How can you not believe what you think? You may not be completely confident about it but you clearly "believe" it.

Although in her case it’s actually quite sound advice given how much rubbish she thinks.

In fairness, I wish I could think of some rubbish which earns me millions for providing the government with stuff that doesn't work.
I wouldn't be on this bus for a start.

NerysHughes

ydoethur said:

This is going to be bad:

Nurses to strike for two days before Christmas
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63746334

The majority of nurses will not strike and the strikers will be covered by bank shifts.

Sandpit

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

A generation: someone born on the day of the last vote, is allowed to vote in the next one?

The only problem with that definition, is that the SNP would let primary school children vote if it let them hold it sooner.

So I’ll stick with a generation is being at least 18 years.

IanB2

eek said:

IanB2 said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?

A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.

I sympathise - but genuinely don't think that would mean no more Conservative PMs. Once the party works out how to deal with other parties without trying to shaft them.

HYUFD

eek said:

IanB2 said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?

A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.

That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.

The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example

IanB2

HYUFD said:

eek said:

IanB2 said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?

A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.

That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.

The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example

A very rare chance to agree with our HY, here.

TheScreamingEagles

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

WillG

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The normally noisy Lady Mone has broken her 11 month twitter silence with a prime piece of livelaughlove-ology. I shall stop believing what I think this instant.

How can you not believe what you think? You may not be completely confident about it but you clearly "believe" it.

A wise man is able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Just remind them it was used for a Crusade and they’ll drop the idea faster than Hancock can drop his trousers.

WillG

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Given the Qataris are still getting upset about crusader costumes, I reckon we have just grounds for outrage in the victim Olympics over this.

Theuniondivvie

Something that was printed on fine HMG paper if not set in stone, and agreed by all parties post referendum.

‘It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so decide.’

Theuniondivvie

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Culturally appropriating Norse achievements also, a disgrace.

CarlottaVance

I’m sure the #FBPE crew have posted this already:

London’s Stock Market Edges Back Above Paris After Pound Surge

UK market capital lost top spot to Paris 10 days ago Move driven by sterling rebound, French luxury rally easing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-24/london-s-stock-market-edges-back-above-paris-after-pound-surge#xj4y7vzkg?

RochdalePioneers

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

Pro_Rata

The Jack argument seemed to be:

- A generation has not passed, though there is no attempt to define to clarify thoughts on what a generation might be (I guess since it is not in this parliament). You could use the GFA 7 years, a typical parent-first child generation of 25-30+ years, or the political (not born-eligible to vote) or a lower possible legal parent-fitst child generation of around 16 years (I'd say this). I guess Jack prefers the 'once it's a cold day in hell definition of a generation, but then it's fair to say Con rule reflects some of the perceived recklessness and chaos of an underage pregnancy.

- The line seems to be that there hasn't been a clear shift in polling or at elections to justify re-asking the question.

I think polling does play a role in this, unless you call a referendum about whether to hold a referendum it has to.

On the Scottish elections. A mandate came from seats for Scotland to ask, not to get.

Jack says that SNP got one third of the votes (by the invariably dishonest method of multiplying by turnout). The SNP cherry pick the list vote for their pro-Indy vote majority. It's true that counting all the votes, list and constituency,, pro-Indy fell.just short of winning the popular vote, as I think it has done at all previous elections since 2014.

So, I'd sort of agree that we haven't had a generation and there has not been a sea change. I think, because of the consequences ,I do support the decision sitting at Westminster, though it sits uncomfortably that there is no formal condition under which there is an obligation to agree to Scotland's requests.

But then an elected majority by the rules of that majority did ask, and own the political peril of asking too much. Even though I think Westminster should hold the key, I'm not convinced they should refuse - and that is a political peril they own.

ydoethur

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Culturally appropriating Norse achievements also, a disgrace.

There's Norway they should get away with this, but we should not Dane to get involved.

kjh

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Our border force will have them in an asylum centre if they try and Braveman will have them deported in a trice. Maybe.

RochdalePioneers

HYUFD said:

eek said:

IanB2 said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?

A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.

That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.

The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example

When you say "the populist right" I assume you mean the darling Nigel and REFUK? We know from yesterday's announcement that Farage is going to lead a REFUK general election campaign with candidates everywhere and no deals with the Tories this time. Under FPTP that could cost you a lot of seats.

Under PR? If people want to elect REFUK MPs then great - let them! UKIP reached a peak of 4m votes and not a single MP. I may vehemently disagree with UKIP/REFUK but I am a democrat and people should get what they vote for.

kjh

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

IanB2 said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?

A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.

That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.

The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example

A very rare chance to agree with our HY, here.

I know it's unnerving, but it has happened to me and you do get over it.

ydoethur

kjh said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Our border force will have them in an asylum centre if they try and Braveman will have them deported in a trice. Maybe.

Something for them to Rue, and a day for Braverman to cherish?

TheScreamingEagles

kjh said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Our border force will have them in an asylum centre if they try and Braveman will have them deported in a trice. Maybe.

Many years ago a Danish team sailed a replica longship to Ramsgate for an anniversary of the Jutish invasion. The Daily Mail bought the ship for the people of Ramsgate in celebration of the achievement of people crossing the Channel in boats. True story.

https://twitter.com/andrewteale/status/1596059108742172673

kjh

ydoethur said:

kjh said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Our border force will have them in an asylum centre if they try and Braveman will have them deported in a trice. Maybe.

Something for them to Rue, and a day for Braverman to cherish?

Took me a few seconds even with the bolding.

ydoethur

kjh said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

IanB2 said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?

A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.

That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.

The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example

A very rare chance to agree with our HY, here.

I know it's unnerving, but it has happened to me and you do get over it.

Actually even though he spent a lot of the previous thread getting mad at me I have to disagree. Hyufd is frequently right. Does anyone on here have a deeper knowledge of polling? Or of current Tory thinking (such as it is)?

The issue is he's never willing to admit when he's wrong, which he is, often and spectacularly. I'm not sure whether that's arrogance or a slightly childish desire to wind people up (like that time I messed around with you over whether birds are animals).

It is, of course, rude and exasperating. But he is on balance an asset to the site.

Scott_xP

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 50% (-)
CON: 27% (-1)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
GRN: 4% (-)

via @techneUK, 23 - 24 Nov
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britainpredicts

algarkirk

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Albanian crew?

Carnyx

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.

And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/supreme-court-scottish-nationalists-judgment

'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.

This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.

But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'

CarlottaVance

On topic, interesting thread header. Here’s another thread from yesterday from a University of Glasgow constitutional lawyer:

As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/

That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/

https://twitter.com/ProfTomkins/status/1595701026753216514

And from the other side of the argument:

Problem I've got just now is that I don't believe top-brass SNP when they insist they want a referendum soon. This impasse is an electoral goldmine. The salience of this argument about democracy only resonates in presence of undeniable popular support for indy.….

I just don't feel that support growing outside of those who are already onside. A pro indy majority exists in parliament but it’s not exactly overwhelming. Until that changes then UK govt can sit in and refer to 2014. I desire independence for Scotland based on a definitive result..

You cant expect an electorally significant mass of people to suddenly warm to idea of more political/economic upheaval in middle of a cost of living catastrophe. Not least when Brexit (painful breakup of a political/ economic union) is being used as the justification for it.

https://twitter.com/lokiscottishrap/status/1595549182047182851

NickPalmer

Very interesting piece - thanks Gerry. An underlying problem is that it's at heart a cross-party issue - do Scots want to be separate or not? But every party (SNP, Lan, Cons, everyone) has very definite ideas about what is in their party interest, and that's getting in the way of a consensus on how to resolve the issue. The SNP benefits from the issue always seeming to be about to be be decided (which purshing "their" issue to the top of the agenda), but not from an actual result, which would probably be "no". Labour and Conservatives benefit from it being seen as a lost cause, which it cleatly is not (yet, anyway).

StillWaters

Thanks Gerry. An interesting piece.

The answer to your question is quite simple in principle but challenging to define in practice

The Scottish government needs to convince the Westminster parliament (in practice the UK government) that it is the “settled will” of the Scottish people that there should be independence. This would need to be validated in a referendum.

Scotland’s partners in the Union have rights as well, so there should be a meaningful threshold that needs to be surmounted for there to be a referendum.

However, I don’t think it is necessary or appropriate to define a criteria. Lots of factors play a role - opinion polls, share of the vote, Holyrood seats, the passage of time, etc.

ultimately it needs to be a point of discussion and persuasion - in fact to say “you need to do X and you can have a referendum” framed the relationship as being adversarial and Scotland being subordinate. That is not true - they are a partner in the Union and if that is to be unwound then it needs to be collaborative. And the British people as a whole are fair minded - if it is clear that a referendum is the “settled will” of the Scots then the voters will punish a Westminster government that acts unreasonably

algarkirk

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

Not quite. we are talking about an internationally significant constitutional change - seats at the UN, NATO and EU membership, trade and movement borders at Berwick and Gretna etc.

There is a tendency for populations always to say they are content to have a vote on issue X if they are asked in a poll - people like being asked.

But the critical thing required for a further referendum is clear evidence of a sustained preponderance of opinion in favour of the change. We already (2014) have the evidence that there isn't; there is so far no evidence that there is.

JosiasJessop

TheScreamingEagles said:

kjh said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Our border force will have them in an asylum centre if they try and Braveman will have them deported in a trice. Maybe.

Many years ago a Danish team sailed a replica longship to Ramsgate for an anniversary of the Jutish invasion. The Daily Mail bought the ship for the people of Ramsgate in celebration of the achievement of people crossing the Channel in boats. True story.

https://twitter.com/andrewteale/status/1596059108742172673

Is that the longship that (was, 20 years ago) on the foreshore in that area? Quite a surprising thing to stumble across whilst on a walk.

Richard_Tyndall

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Culturally appropriating Norse achievements also, a disgrace.

It would be quite cool if the Regia Anglorum re-enactors all lined up to meet them on Senlac Hill.

StillWaters

MoonRabbit said:

Balrog said:

1st?

I've just seen a face
I can't forget the time or place where we first met
I am a Balrog,
He was just a beardless Istari you bet
Rah rah rah rah-rah rah

He came into by smoking room
And called me names like Flame of Udûn
I failed to see the joke, I burned his bridge
But then it broke too soon
Ahhhh...

Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me
Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me

I got him with my whip
I made the daft old mongrel slip
He grabbed on to my mane
And now we're going down in flames, bad trip
Ow ow ow ow-ow ow

What a palaver
He beat seven shades of lava out of me
This freefall free-for-all
Is sapping all my flammability
Ow ow ow ow-ow ow

Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me
Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me

I've done some silly things
But that's the price that evil brings
And though I'm ages old,
I wish someone had told me I had wings
Ow flap ow flap-flap ow

Long I fell and he fell too
He tried to tell me what to do
When he said “fly you fool”,
You see he meant it just for me, not you
Ow, flap, ow, flap-flap splash

Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me
Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me

Through the caverns
To the top of Caradhras, you bet your life we stopped
That's not the tiring bit,
It's having too say “tag you're it” non-stop
Neah neah neah neah-neah neah

I could have had him beat,
But somehow he can stand the heat
I could have taken him
Except he had a magic ring, the cheat!
Raaah grrrrr raah

Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me
Falling, yes I am falling
And Gandalf's falling along with me

I've ranted and I've roared
I wish I'd stayed back with my hoard
I thank the evil lord
This wizard doesn't wield an elven sw-
Ooor! Falling... urh oh ow ... no no no... Ow Argh Arrgh

You know a balrog is basically a fallen angel right? (Although it’s an interesting suggestion that “fly you fool” is Olorin encouraging his former brother to seek redemption” even to the very end)

Carnyx

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23145781.no-magic-legal-bullet-win-stop-independence/

Also worth a read - Oliver Tickell.

'At different times, the ambiguity about Holyrood’s power to legislate for a second poll has helped both the UK and Scottish Governments. This judgment leaves both positions exposed. It used to be a settled principle in Scottish constitutional life that the Union is voluntary, and that Scots retain the right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. This was a principle once endorsed not only by pro-independence politicians, but by Scottish Labour, the Liberal Democrats and some Tory politicians. Some still genuflect in this direction.

The UK Supreme Court may not accept that Scots have a right to secede from the UK in international law – but most Scots take it for granted that they have a democratic right to self-determination. Devolution at its best sense was once monument to the idea. The 2014 referendum was another. Whether or not you support Scottish self-government, the idea this long-nurtured, deep-planted and widespread constitutional consciousness can be technically expunged by a judgment of the court is pure fantasy. The legal question about the limits of devolution may be decided. But the constitutional politics – rightly – rumble on.'

OnlyLivingBoy

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Bloody Normans. This is beyond a yoke.

Carnyx

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Culturally appropriating Norse achievements also, a disgrace.

It would be quite cool if the Regia Anglorum re-enactors all lined up to meet them on Senlac Hill.

Pity about all this modern Norman architectural crap cluttering the site. It does get in the way.

Theuniondivvie

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, interesting thread header. Here’s another thread from yesterday from a University of Glasgow constitutional lawyer:

As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/

That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/

https://twitter.com/ProfTomkins/status/1595701026753216514

And from the other side of the argument:

Problem I've got just now is that I don't believe top-brass SNP when they insist they want a referendum soon. This impasse is an electoral goldmine. The salience of this argument about democracy only resonates in presence of undeniable popular support for indy.….

I just don't feel that support growing outside of those who are already onside. A pro indy majority exists in parliament but it’s not exactly overwhelming. Until that changes then UK govt can sit in and refer to 2014. I desire independence for Scotland based on a definitive result..

You cant expect an electorally significant mass of people to suddenly warm to idea of more political/economic upheaval in middle of a cost of living catastrophe. Not least when Brexit (painful breakup of a political/ economic union) is being used as the justification for it.

https://twitter.com/lokiscottishrap/status/1595549182047182851

You seemed to very keen on (mis)identifying an Alba MP as SNP recently, perhaps by the same token you might note that the University of Glasgow constitutional lawyer is also an ex SCon MSP? Though tbf the prof's journey from a republican sharing a platform with Tommy Sheridan and writing pamphlets on how Scotland should rule itself to Rangers supporting ultra yoon might understandably lead to confusion over which shape he has shifted to currently.

Carnyx

NickPalmer said:

Very interesting piece - thanks Gerry. An underlying problem is that it's at heart a cross-party issue - do Scots want to be separate or not? But every party (SNP, Lan, Cons, everyone) has very definite ideas about what is in their party interest, and that's getting in the way of a consensus on how to resolve the issue. The SNP benefits from the issue always seeming to be about to be be decided (which purshing "their" issue to the top of the agenda), but not from an actual result, which would probably be "no". Labour and Conservatives benefit from it being seen as a lost cause, which it cleatly is not (yet, anyway).

On the latter point but one, I beg to differ gently - the Ruth Davidson Party, at least, was always going on and on about the danger of referenda never mind independence, right down to local council election leaflets, and that's why it did so well compared to Labour and the LDs.

Will be interesting to see what happens now they have sort of admitted to being part of the same party as Messrs/Mdmes Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Truss, Sunak and Hunt.

ydoethur

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Culturally appropriating Norse achievements also, a disgrace.

It would be quite cool if the Regia Anglorum re-enactors all lined up to meet them on Senlac Hill.

On the contrary. This time we should garrison Pevensey against them so they can't land at all.

RochdalePioneers

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.

And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/supreme-court-scottish-nationalists-judgment

'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.

This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.

But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'

Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.

What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.

Carnyx

RochdalePioneers said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.

And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/supreme-court-scottish-nationalists-judgment

'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.

This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.

But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'

Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.

What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.

And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.

IanB2

kjh said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

IanB2 said:

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.

Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).

Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.

The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.

*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.

The issue relives when Labour come to the end of their stint in power... and that really will be a generation mid 2030s

That will depend entirely on how quickly the Tories can work through HY’s cast list of future Tory opposition leaders, before finally returning to put forward someone more sensible?

It's not crazy to think that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.

Dave only become an MP in 2001, Keir in 2015.

Given the size of the forthcoming Tory party meltdown - it’s quite possible the next Conservative MP is a student.

With any luck, at some pre-school nursery that the Tories haven't yet managed to close down?

A more accurate answer would be never - if Labour are sensible enough to change our elections away from FPTP in their first terms of office.

That would also mean Labour likely never win a majority again either.

The Tories can govern with the LDs as in 2010 to 2015 or with the populist right, UKIP would have held the balance of power in 2015 with PR for example

A very rare chance to agree with our HY, here.

I know it's unnerving, but it has happened to me and you do get over it.

But how long do the PTSD symptoms hang around, though?

AlistairM

Ooops. You do have to wonder at the thought processes of the people who thought doing live-action war roleplay was a good idea not far from the Russia-Ukraine border.

1/ In what may be a bizarre case of mistaken identity, the Russian FSB has killed a group of Russian people it claims are pro-Ukrainian saboteurs – but who reportedly appear to be Airsoft enthusiasts who were engaged in live-action roleplay of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. video games. ⬇️
https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1596066963608178688

Carnyx

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was in the Edinburgh agreement that it would be a ‘decisive expression of public opinion.’ Which is why Salmond repeatedly described it as ‘once in a generation’ e.g. at the campaign launch.

But it would have been much better to say, ‘no further application for a Section 30 order will be considered for X years.’

If was Salmond saying it eight years ago then it doesn't mean shit, does it?

Curious how the PB Unionists now hang onto every word of Mr Salmond, isn't it?

CarlottaVance

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, interesting thread header. Here’s another thread from yesterday from a University of Glasgow constitutional lawyer:

As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/

That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/

https://twitter.com/ProfTomkins/status/1595701026753216514

And from the other side of the argument:

Problem I've got just now is that I don't believe top-brass SNP when they insist they want a referendum soon. This impasse is an electoral goldmine. The salience of this argument about democracy only resonates in presence of undeniable popular support for indy.….

I just don't feel that support growing outside of those who are already onside. A pro indy majority exists in parliament but it’s not exactly overwhelming. Until that changes then UK govt can sit in and refer to 2014. I desire independence for Scotland based on a definitive result..

You cant expect an electorally significant mass of people to suddenly warm to idea of more political/economic upheaval in middle of a cost of living catastrophe. Not least when Brexit (painful breakup of a political/ economic union) is being used as the justification for it.

https://twitter.com/lokiscottishrap/status/1595549182047182851

You seemed to very keen on (mis)identifying an Alba MP as SNP recently, perhaps by the same token you might note that the University of Glasgow constitutional lawyer is also an ex SCon MSP? Though tbf the prof's journey from a republican sharing a platform with Tommy Sheridan and writing pamphlets on how Scotland should rule itself to Rangers supporting ultra yoon might understandably lead to confusion over which shape he has shifted to currently.

And as to the arguments advanced?

Or is that all you've got?

RochdalePioneers

algarkirk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

Not quite. we are talking about an internationally significant constitutional change - seats at the UN, NATO and EU membership, trade and movement borders at Berwick and Gretna etc.

There is a tendency for populations always to say they are content to have a vote on issue X if they are asked in a poll - people like being asked.

But the critical thing required for a further referendum is clear evidence of a sustained preponderance of opinion in favour of the change. We already (2014) have the evidence that there isn't; there is so far no evidence that there is.

I agree - thats literally what I posted. Unless there is a clear 60%+ sustained majority in polling for independence then we don't need to have a rerun of 2014. The problem is that we haven't agreed that criteria. "Once in a generation" is meaningless.

JosiasJessop

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ugh, this is glorifying colonialism, the French should reflect on this and stop it.

French team to build replica of William the Conqueror’s warship

Viking-style vessel is based on the one that launched invasion of England in 1066 and its makers hope to sail it across Channel

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/french-team-build-replica-william-conqueror-warship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Culturally appropriating Norse achievements also, a disgrace.

It would be quite cool if the Regia Anglorum re-enactors all lined up to meet them on Senlac Hill.

On the contrary. This time we should garrison Pevensey against them so they can't land at all.

Shouldn't we first have a Norwegian invasion of York, and a battle just north of there?

The long march back down the A1 might reduce the number of Harold Redux's soldiers, though.

CarlottaVance

Scot Gov admits that no modelling of a fundamental consequence of independence has been done. They have no record of the issue ever being discussed. Should be a big story.



https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1596055806109052928

Carnyx

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

With hindsight they were right, the chance hasn’t come again soon.

I don’t see how Sunak can offer a date beyond the next election unless he has agreed it with Starmer. Otherwise the SNP will just accuse him of lying on the grounds it won’t be his decision by then.

You are also right about the democratic will of the Scottish people, and how it is being ignored, but unfortunately the whole way this has been set up means that actually doesn’t count. Perhaps something else for politicians to ponder when they start setting up such agreements.

I agree that he should consult Starmer on this but the reality is that if the s30 consent is given then it would be impossible for the UK government to change its mind (at least in practical terms, if not in theory).

I can. 2026 is beyond (well, the date of) the next Scottish Parliament elections as well.

Starmer: ‘This parliament didn’t request it, I didn’t approve it. It’s hereby repealed.’

I think it would have to be something like ‘2027, if a majority of that new Parliament votes to ask for one’ in your scenario.

Which would be the very thing you’re trying to avoid - ignoring the mandate of this one.

But once the UK government gave its consent the Scottish Parliament would legislate for it and the SC decision is equally clear that it would be competent to do so. How would Starmer actually stop the implementation of the Scottish Act? Short of repealing the Scotland Act in its entirety he couldn't.

Are you sure? I thought that under the doctrine that devolution cam be withdrawn at any time, what the SP enacts can be cancelled by an act at Westminster directly intervening in the SP powers, if the UKG is willing to take the consequential flak.

Isn't there a precedent? The last but three (? - I lose count) Tory administration/PM combination tried to do something illegal under the devolution rules, the SG sued in the courts, and HMG just didn't reply to the case till it had changed the law to remove the problem (as it saw it).

Foxy

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

IanB2 said:

Note the tiny votes for Labour in the IOW seat and for the LDs in the Bassetlaw seat - voters doing well to work out who the likely winner will be.

The Bassetlaw result is really good for Labour. A very rural ward never gained by Labour before. Typically 60+% Tory vote.

Similarly in the IOW for the LibDems - a safe rural Tory seat in the west of the island, previously (prior to some boundary shuffling) represented by the now Tory MP for the IOW. Doubtless helped along by the previous councillor (and previous Tory Group Leader on the council) having thrown in both his Tory membership and his seat during those long days of the Truss premiership.

Bob Seeley going for East rather than West Wight with the new boundaries? Any idea which is the better opposition prospect? Difficult to know which party is best placed to take the seats?

Carnyx

CarlottaVance said:

Scot Gov admits that no modelling of a fundamental consequence of independence has been done. They have no record of the issue ever being discussed. Should be a big story.



https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1596055806109052928

Currency discussions in SG - Carlotta + the rest of the Yoons furious at the waste of public money.

Currency discussions kept out of SG and within SNP - Carlotta and the rest of the Yoons furious ...

RochdalePioneers

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.

And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/supreme-court-scottish-nationalists-judgment

'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.

This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.

But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'

Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.

What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.

And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.

The immediate question is should we hold another independence referendum. The wider question now behind that is Whither Democracy? Scotland voted in a majority for parties and representatives who support a new referendum. What the SC and Westminster are saying is that they don't care what Scotland votes for, it can't have it.

Yes of course there are limits - Scotland can't vote for war with France or to abolish all taxation. But self-determination? Democracy is nothing if it isn't the act of self-determination.

And this isn't even just a Scottish issue. We have been told very bluntly that however we vote in the Scottish parliament we can and will be ignored. England can't even do that - no parliament at all. We need to fix this jumbled mess that is the supposedly United Kingdom.

Theuniondivvie

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, interesting thread header. Here’s another thread from yesterday from a University of Glasgow constitutional lawyer:

As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/

That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/

https://twitter.com/ProfTomkins/status/1595701026753216514

And from the other side of the argument:

Problem I've got just now is that I don't believe top-brass SNP when they insist they want a referendum soon. This impasse is an electoral goldmine. The salience of this argument about democracy only resonates in presence of undeniable popular support for indy.….

I just don't feel that support growing outside of those who are already onside. A pro indy majority exists in parliament but it’s not exactly overwhelming. Until that changes then UK govt can sit in and refer to 2014. I desire independence for Scotland based on a definitive result..

You cant expect an electorally significant mass of people to suddenly warm to idea of more political/economic upheaval in middle of a cost of living catastrophe. Not least when Brexit (painful breakup of a political/ economic union) is being used as the justification for it.

https://twitter.com/lokiscottishrap/status/1595549182047182851

You seemed to very keen on (mis)identifying an Alba MP as SNP recently, perhaps by the same token you might note that the University of Glasgow constitutional lawyer is also an ex SCon MSP? Though tbf the prof's journey from a republican sharing a platform with Tommy Sheridan and writing pamphlets on how Scotland should rule itself to Rangers supporting ultra yoon might understandably lead to confusion over which shape he has shifted to currently.

And as to the arguments advanced?

Or is that all you've got?

I'm as interested in engaging with other people's arguments presented by you on this subject as I am in your 40 post per day on your other favoured area of interest.

Perhaps you can guess how interested that is.

algarkirk

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

(‘a generation’).

I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?

Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?

It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.

For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.

I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.

I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.

But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.

What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.

If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.

Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.

Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.

And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/supreme-court-scottish-nationalists-judgment

'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.

This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.

But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'

Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.

What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.

And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.

Two problems with this set of views:

The stuff about Westminster is merely a restatement of an international fact; that sovereignty resides where sovereignty resides, namely in the supreme democratic process of an internationally recognised state called the UK. Gosh.

Secondly, if you look at election results only we may have referendums for ever. You have to look at the weight of opinion about the answer, not the question. There is no evidence that the settled will of the Scottish people is to change. When there is there should be, and will be, a referendum.

Ghedebrav

Excellent piece from Gerry Hassan here, thank you.

Scott_xP

New from @PeoplePolling for @GBNEWS, 23 Nov
Lab 44% -3
Con 24% +3
Lib Dem 10% nc
Reform 5% -1
(Change since 18 Nov; via press release)

CarlottaVance

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

Scot Gov admits that no modelling of a fundamental consequence of independence has been done. They have no record of the issue ever being discussed. Should be a big story.



https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1596055806109052928

Currency discussions in SG - Carlotta + the rest of the Yoons furious at the waste of public money.

Currency discussions kept out of SG and within SNP - Carlotta and the rest of the Yoons furious ...

Do you think it would be money well spent?

Or once again, a Nat playing the player, not the ball?

Theuniondivvie

I recall how triggered some were by the recent Jocks supporting the Ayatollahs brouhaha, smelling salts at the ready.