Howdy, Stranger!

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

The exodus of CON MPs continues – politicalbetting.com

245678

Comments

  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 373
    kle4 said:

    pillsbury said:


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

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

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

    Such larks.

    Under pressure my arse. I think politics watchers have become a bit addicted to resignations and sackings.
    Tend to agree.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,846
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    Poor Wales, overlooked again.
    Yma o Hyd
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    Professor of Public Law, Durham:

    So there it is: the reference *was* competent, but a referendum bill *would* relate to a reserved matter.

    The court also addressed the SNP's submissions on the right to self-determination in international law and (unsurprisingly) rejected them.

    An unexpectedly decisive decision


    https://twitter.com/AileenMcHarg/status/1595356454076170240
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,285
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

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

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

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

    If you've forgotten:

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

    But it is irrelevant if it is not in the document.
    Why does it being in one document matter? Given the SNP's entire strategy since five minutes after losing in 2014 was to hold a referendum that was technically advisory but in practice binding, why are you obsessed with one precise phrase in one single document?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482

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

    Isn't that what Alba was set up for?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,258
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    If it was a colony it would have no MPs and no Parliament at Holyrood
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250
    Carnyx said:

    And for unionists, what is the answer to the question, the mechanism for how Scotland is supposed to express its will?'

    We expressed our will in 2014
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482

    Professor of Public Law, Durham:

    So there it is: the reference *was* competent, but a referendum bill *would* relate to a reserved matter.

    The court also addressed the SNP's submissions on the right to self-determination in international law and (unsurprisingly) rejected them.

    An unexpectedly decisive decision


    https://twitter.com/AileenMcHarg/status/1595356454076170240

    They could have dodged some of the questions, so it is helpful they did not. I don't think public opinion moves massively on the basis of technical legal arguments, but it at least makes clear certain legal routes are not viable and thus the range of future actions is more defined, if still wide.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,258

    HYUFD said:

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

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

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    It is, but, and its a big but, if the SNP keep framing election campaigns as single item votes and keep winning and if the opinion polling in Scotland shifts significantly in favour of a referendum/independence, then I think it has to happen.
    Legally and constututionally it doesn't and in any case certainly not less than 10 years after the last referendum as the SC confirmed today
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,676
    Mortimer said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    British empire. Not English. British.
    Sorry Malc - Scotland can’t just run away from its part in the British empire
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

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

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

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



    'On September 7th the BBC broadcast a speech by Mr Brown in which the Labour MP pledged Home Rule if Scotland voted No in the independence referendum.
    A day later, Better Together leader Alistair Darling confirmed in a BBC interview that Devo Max would be offered to Scotland if voters rejected independence.  Devo Max is accepted to mean the devolution of all powers, with the exception of Foreign Affairs and Defence.
    Days after Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling made their pledge, the three leaders of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems signed a vow promising to honour the pledge and grant Scotland significant new powers.'
    Leaving the EU is both a strong justification for Indyref2 and a reason why it will be harder than last time to get Yes above 50%.
    I don't think this is the killer point that many Scottish nationalists think it is.

    A Yes vote in 2014 probably would have led to an early exit from the European Union for Scotland.

    You'd then have had a second decision point for rUK in 2016 where it may, or may not, have decided to do the same.

    The fact that the second event took place does not mean that the first would not have taken place.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    edited November 23
    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    If it was a colony it would have no MPs and no Parliament at Holyrood
    I certainly don't think it's a colony, though playing Devil's Advocate I'm pretty sure Ireland and Scotland had MPs representing them even when they had been literally conquered in the Cromwellian settlement (I even recall one of the Ireland assigned MPs telling the protectorate parliament that the place was poorer and more devastated than they were saying and could not afford what they demanded).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197

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

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

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

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

    It's not going anywhere because although the SNP have enough votes to keep winning majorities at Holyrood the dial hasn't shifted.
    Christ, grammar all over the place in that post.

    Still, you get the point.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    It is, but, and its a big but, if the SNP keep framing election campaigns as single item votes and keep winning and if the opinion polling in Scotland shifts significantly in favour of a referendum/independence, then I think it has to happen.
    Legally and constututionally it doesn't and in any case certainly not less than 10 years after the last referendum as the SC confirmed today
    Where does the judgement say 10 years?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    Scotland is not a colony. The act of Union was NOT colonisation. King James the V1th of Scotland became the ruler of England as King James 1st.

    I understand many people in Scotland want to become independent. At the most recent opportunity not enough of the voters wanted too. The specious argument that electing a majority of SNP and Green MSP's means the nation voted for a new referendum is false - unless both parties campaigned on one and only one item on the manifesto, which they did not.

    Should they do so next time, and win again, then a case has been made. Should the opinion polling significantly shift, then a case has been strengthened.

    You act as if rUK has no say in all this. It does. Scotland becoming independent has a massive effect on all of us, so much so that a better vote might be for every voter in the UK - do you want to dissolve the Union of Scotland and England?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    Sean_F said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It’s why Right of Conquest is no longer considered lawful.
    Well, there's one or two states who disagree, but they tend not to be well thought of.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    Eabhal said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

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

    Standard grade history was very good at explaining just how important Scotland was for colonising the Empire - whether it was the slave trade or Scots regiments putting down the locals.
    In my youth (admittedly a long time ago) Scot Nats used to boast that "the Scots ran the British Empire".....
  • glwglw Posts: 8,790

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

    All extremist movements eventually start fighting amongst themselves when they decide that some people aren't quite hardline enough.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    It is, but, and its a big but, if the SNP keep framing election campaigns as single item votes and keep winning and if the opinion polling in Scotland shifts significantly in favour of a referendum/independence, then I think it has to happen.
    Legally and constututionally it doesn't and in any case certainly not less than 10 years after the last referendum as the SC confirmed today
    Where does the judgement say 10 years?
    Words not in the judgement

    Mandate, generation

    Years is in the context of

    "46. In confining the power to make a reference to Law Officers, the United Kingdom
    Parliament could also be confident that such references would be made responsibly in
    the public interest. That confidence is borne out by the fact that this is the first
    occasion on which a reference has been made by the Lord Advocate since the Scotland
    Act came into force 23 years ago."
    &
    "We also note that Lord Hope said at para 33 of the same case that it would be wrong
    to pay any regard to the Explanatory Notes on the Scotland Act, which were produced
    by officials several years after the legislation had been enacted, and therefore did not
    form any part of the contextual scene of the statute"

    The ruling is that the matter is forever the province of the UK Gov't

    Note the realm of politics IS delved into in para 81
    1. A lawful referendum on the question envisaged by the Bill would undoubtedly
    be an important political event, even if its outcome had no immediate legal
    consequences, and even if the United Kingdom Government had not given any political
    commitment to act upon it. A clear outcome, whichever way the question was
    answered, would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded
    upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.
    The clear expression of its wish either to remain within the United Kingdom or to
    pursue secession would strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union,
    depending on which view prevailed, and support or undermine the democratic
    credentials of the independence movement. It would consequently have important
    political consequences relating to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament.

    It might be said that the conclusuions of para 81 are obvious but should the court have mused on the political ramifications of a non binding referendum ?

    I'm not sure.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,000

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

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

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

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

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

    Effectively, the court is saying that if you already have "meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development" then it undermines any case that you can act unilaterally to bring about secession. The extra layer of that "meaningful access" in the form of the devolution settlement, way beyond anything enjoyed in any part or region of England, has come back to bite the SNP by undermining their wish to go further unilaterally.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    edited November 23
    DavidL said:

    The decision of the SC was inevitable and will surely have surprised no one. Everyone knew what the rules were from the discussions in 2013 which created the 2014 referendum, including Nicola Sturgeon who played a significant part in those discussions. She has been playing a fairly irresponsible game with this knowing full well that the most she could achieve is another grievance and another excuse for her lack of activity to the wings of the party who are getting fed up with her.

    But the question asked by Nationalists on this board is a fair one: how does Scotland exercise its right of self- determination if the UK Parliament will not give consent to a second referendum? In the latest Scottish elections a very small majority voted for parties committed to a second referendum. To me, as a democrat, that is important. I do not agree that things have materially changed since 2014 but my individual view is not important. The collective view of the Scottish people who voted was in favour of a second referendum (just).

    As a Unionist I believe that our Union is equal, consensual and beneficial. The second element of that is important. The decision of the SC is clearly right in law and was both predictable and predicted. But the question of democratic consent remains. I am uncomfortable with it. A UK government should be very cautious about declining such requests because they are really democratic demands.



    An interesting assessment. At the moiment it is a small majority, as you correctly say. But it is a majority. And the UKG has been happy to move major matters on small majorities. The question is what happens if opinion shifts whether in polling or voting for parties which support independence or at least referenda on the matter. And there is no point in Unionists complaining if the SNP (and presumably SGs) treat the next election as a de facto referendum if they won't provide an alternative.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,294

    Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas

    She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time. Therefore the challenge is to bring two strands of political activity to simultaneous fruition:

    1. Build majority support in Scotland for independence. 2. Build pressure on the UK government to permit a vote on it.

    Both these are needed. Neither one alone gets the job done. It's a tough challenge and she'll quite likely fail - but the idea she isn't really up for it is perverse imo. I see no evidence whatsoever that she's doing anything but plotting the best realistic route to an independent Scotland by the end of the decade.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,285
    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    It is, but, and its a big but, if the SNP keep framing election campaigns as single item votes and keep winning and if the opinion polling in Scotland shifts significantly in favour of a referendum/independence, then I think it has to happen.
    Legally and constututionally it doesn't and in any case certainly not less than 10 years after the last referendum as the SC confirmed today
    Where does the judgement say 10 years?
    Words not in the judgement

    Mandate, generation

    Years is in the context of

    "46. In confining the power to make a reference to Law Officers, the United Kingdom
    Parliament could also be confident that such references would be made responsibly in
    the public interest. That confidence is borne out by the fact that this is the first
    occasion on which a reference has been made by the Lord Advocate since the Scotland
    Act came into force 23 years ago."
    &
    "We also note that Lord Hope said at para 33 of the same case that it would be wrong
    to pay any regard to the Explanatory Notes on the Scotland Act, which were produced
    by officials several years after the legislation had been enacted, and therefore did not
    form any part of the contextual scene of the statute"

    The ruling is that the matter is forever the province of the UK Gov't

    Note the realm of politics IS delved into in para 81
    1. A lawful referendum on the question envisaged by the Bill would undoubtedly
    be an important political event, even if its outcome had no immediate legal
    consequences, and even if the United Kingdom Government had not given any political
    commitment to act upon it. A clear outcome, whichever way the question was
    answered, would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded
    upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.
    The clear expression of its wish either to remain within the United Kingdom or to
    pursue secession would strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union,
    depending on which view prevailed, and support or undermine the democratic
    credentials of the independence movement. It would consequently have important
    political consequences relating to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament.

    It might be said that the conclusuions of para 81 are obvious but should the court have mused on the political ramifications of a non binding referendum ?

    I'm not sure.
    Given that the SNP's entire strategy has been to make it politically binding (even if technically advisory), I can't see how they can have avoided it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    DavidL said:

    The decision of the SC was inevitable and will surely have surprised no one. Everyone knew what the rules were from the discussions in 2013 which created the 2014 referendum, including Nicola Sturgeon who played a significant part in those discussions. She has been playing a fairly irresponsible game with this knowing full well that the most she could achieve is another grievance and another excuse for her lack of activity to the wings of the party who are getting fed up with her.

    But the question asked by Nationalists on this board is a fair one: how does Scotland exercise its right of self- determination if the UK Parliament will not give consent to a second referendum? In the latest Scottish elections a very small majority voted for parties committed to a second referendum. To me, as a democrat, that is important. I do not agree that things have materially changed since 2014 but my individual view is not important. The collective view of the Scottish people who voted was in favour of a second referendum (just).

    As a Unionist I believe that our Union is equal, consensual and beneficial. The second element of that is important. The decision of the SC is clearly right in law and was both predictable and predicted. But the question of democratic consent remains. I am uncomfortable with it. A UK government should be very cautious about declining such requests because they are really democratic demands.

    Yes, if its parliament wants one, how long can that reasonably be ignored? Legally forever, but that's not much of a straetgy. Eabhal's point about avoiding being spammed with referendums but recognising democratic basis is a good one.

    As you say Sturgeon must have prepared for this outcome. Grievances will be raised, but she also has to actually do something.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,285
    kinabalu said:

    Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas

    She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
    Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    I think the Nats making great wind of today as "anti-democratic London rule etc etc" may *feel* justified, but I fear it'll quickly run aground and come across in the long run as an appeal to the base, and only the base - not the 1/3 Scots still undecided about the union.

    https://twitter.com/BNHWalker/status/1595365232268001280
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

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

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

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



    'On September 7th the BBC broadcast a speech by Mr Brown in which the Labour MP pledged Home Rule if Scotland voted No in the independence referendum.
    A day later, Better Together leader Alistair Darling confirmed in a BBC interview that Devo Max would be offered to Scotland if voters rejected independence.  Devo Max is accepted to mean the devolution of all powers, with the exception of Foreign Affairs and Defence.
    Days after Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling made their pledge, the three leaders of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems signed a vow promising to honour the pledge and grant Scotland significant new powers.'
    Leaving the EU is both a strong justification for Indyref2 and a reason why it will be harder than last time to get Yes above 50%.
    I don't think this is the killer point that many Scottish nationalists think it is.

    A Yes vote in 2014 probably would have led to an early exit from the European Union for Scotland.

    You'd then have had a second decision point for rUK in 2016 where it may, or may not, have decided to do the same.

    The fact that the second event took place does not mean that the first would not have taken place.
    But Scotland would almost certainly be back in the EU by now if it had voted yes in 2014. I'm not sure Cameron's successor would have dared the referendum gamble again in 2016 either.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    edited November 23
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    But the question asked by Nationalists on this board is a fair one: how does Scotland exercise its right of self- determination if the UK Parliament will not give consent to a second referendum? In the latest Scottish elections a very small majority voted for parties committed to a second referendum. To me, as a democrat, that is important. I do not agree that things have materially changed since 2014 but my individual view is not important. The collective view of the Scottish people who voted was in favour of a second referendum (just).

    In the last election campaign, Nippy said "A vote for the SNP is NOT a vote for Indy"

    An SNP majority at Holyrood is NOT the Scottish people expressing their will for Indy
    No, but if their position was hold a referendum to check if the Scottish people do want Indy, and people voted for that, the referendum as a policy has support, even if Sindy itself might still not.

    Now, it's always the case that people don't agree with everything a party proposed and might still vote for them, you cannot assume all the voters did, but equally there are some Sindy or second referendum supporters in SLAB for instance.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited November 23
    Driver said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    It is, but, and its a big but, if the SNP keep framing election campaigns as single item votes and keep winning and if the opinion polling in Scotland shifts significantly in favour of a referendum/independence, then I think it has to happen.
    Legally and constututionally it doesn't and in any case certainly not less than 10 years after the last referendum as the SC confirmed today
    Where does the judgement say 10 years?
    Words not in the judgement

    Mandate, generation

    Years is in the context of

    "46. In confining the power to make a reference to Law Officers, the United Kingdom
    Parliament could also be confident that such references would be made responsibly in
    the public interest. That confidence is borne out by the fact that this is the first
    occasion on which a reference has been made by the Lord Advocate since the Scotland
    Act came into force 23 years ago."
    &
    "We also note that Lord Hope said at para 33 of the same case that it would be wrong
    to pay any regard to the Explanatory Notes on the Scotland Act, which were produced
    by officials several years after the legislation had been enacted, and therefore did not
    form any part of the contextual scene of the statute"

    The ruling is that the matter is forever the province of the UK Gov't

    Note the realm of politics IS delved into in para 81
    1. A lawful referendum on the question envisaged by the Bill would undoubtedly
    be an important political event, even if its outcome had no immediate legal
    consequences, and even if the United Kingdom Government had not given any political
    commitment to act upon it. A clear outcome, whichever way the question was
    answered, would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded
    upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.
    The clear expression of its wish either to remain within the United Kingdom or to
    pursue secession would strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union,
    depending on which view prevailed, and support or undermine the democratic
    credentials of the independence movement. It would consequently have important
    political consequences relating to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament.

    It might be said that the conclusuions of para 81 are obvious but should the court have mused on the political ramifications of a non binding referendum ?

    I'm not sure.
    Given that the SNP's entire strategy has been to make it politically binding (even if technically advisory), I can't see how they can have avoided it.
    The court should be entirely concerned with the law, not the SNP's political tactics.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    Pulpstar said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

    A perfectly sound judgement on international law
    It is, but, and its a big but, if the SNP keep framing election campaigns as single item votes and keep winning and if the opinion polling in Scotland shifts significantly in favour of a referendum/independence, then I think it has to happen.
    Legally and constututionally it doesn't and in any case certainly not less than 10 years after the last referendum as the SC confirmed today
    Where does the judgement say 10 years?
    Words not in the judgement

    Mandate, generation

    Years is in the context of

    "46. In confining the power to make a reference to Law Officers, the United Kingdom
    Parliament could also be confident that such references would be made responsibly in
    the public interest. That confidence is borne out by the fact that this is the first
    occasion on which a reference has been made by the Lord Advocate since the Scotland
    Act came into force 23 years ago."
    &
    "We also note that Lord Hope said at para 33 of the same case that it would be wrong
    to pay any regard to the Explanatory Notes on the Scotland Act, which were produced
    by officials several years after the legislation had been enacted, and therefore did not
    form any part of the contextual scene of the statute"

    The ruling is that the matter is forever the province of the UK Gov't

    Note the realm of politics IS delved into in para 81
    1. A lawful referendum on the question envisaged by the Bill would undoubtedly
    be an important political event, even if its outcome had no immediate legal
    consequences, and even if the United Kingdom Government had not given any political
    commitment to act upon it. A clear outcome, whichever way the question was
    answered, would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded
    upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.
    The clear expression of its wish either to remain within the United Kingdom or to
    pursue secession would strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union,
    depending on which view prevailed, and support or undermine the democratic
    credentials of the independence movement. It would consequently have important
    political consequences relating to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament.

    It might be said that the conclusuions of para 81 are obvious but should the court have mused on the political ramifications of a non binding referendum ?

    I'm not sure.
    Thanks for the clarification - I couldn't think what the meaning of 10 years was (especially as any referendum would be de facto 9-10 years on anyway).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250
    As the SNP spend today trying to delegitimise their opponents (plus ça change!) remember they don’t really believe that the majority view - that referendums on dissolving a union should be occasional rather than regular - is illegitimate. It was Sturgeon’s position until she lost https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1595371046101729282/video/1
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    But the question asked by Nationalists on this board is a fair one: how does Scotland exercise its right of self- determination if the UK Parliament will not give consent to a second referendum? In the latest Scottish elections a very small majority voted for parties committed to a second referendum. To me, as a democrat, that is important. I do not agree that things have materially changed since 2014 but my individual view is not important. The collective view of the Scottish people who voted was in favour of a second referendum (just).

    In the last election campaign, Nippy said "A vote for the SNP is NOT a vote for Indy"

    An SNP majority at Holyrood is NOT the Scottish people expressing their will for Indy
    The question re self-determination is fine and Scotland has a reasonable case, but what of Yorkshire? Or Cornwall? Or Pimlico? I feel for Scots who are desperate for independence. It must be incredibly annoying. But ultimately, not enough of their fellow Scots agreed in 2014.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    kinabalu said:

    Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas

    She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time. Therefore the challenge is to bring two strands of political activity to simultaneous fruition:

    1. Build majority support in Scotland for independence. 2. Build pressure on the UK government to permit a vote on it.

    Both these are needed. Neither one alone gets the job done. It's a tough challenge and she'll quite likely fail - but the idea she isn't really up for it is perverse imo. I see no evidence whatsoever that she's doing anything but plotting the best realistic route to an independent Scotland by the end of the decade.
    Yes, doesn't seem plausible. Though I am curious what those Sindy supporters who do think Sturgeon doesn't really want one, thinks she or the SNP should do now, or the independence movement more generally.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    RIP Wilko Johnson. Had the pleasure of seeing him in his pomp with both Dr. Feelgood and his band the Solid Senders.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,618
    An interesting local by-election today in Ashfield. It is an Ashfield Independent defence where six of their number have been arrested for fraud and electoral malpractice. Tomorrow there are Con defences in Bassetlaw, Isle of Wight, and Warrington; and a Lab defence in Sefton.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148

    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784

    He's wrong about the lack of a majority for a referendum, given the political balance of MPs and MSPs for Scottish constituencies. Unless he wants a referendum on a referendum?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482

    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784

    Not sure the last paragraph was very helpful. Translating it I get:

    1) I'm not criticising asking the question
    2) But the answer was clear, so no more asking it that way please
    3) We need to focus on other things and move on from this debate
    4) We are hopelessly paralysed

    Since the last one is basically - we cannot do a) or b), as there is no majority for that, but we also cannot do nothing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    The BBC summary does make me a little sorry for the needle the Lord Advocate was trying to thread.

    Dorothy Bain KC needed to argue that the case was a weighty issue of great constitutional importance, because she needed the judges to agree to make a ruling.

    But she also needed to argue that a referendum would be of limited legal consequence, in order to try to actually win the main argument.

    The judges noted that she had “very fairly” laid out both sides of the case, in her bid to get a ruling – and she did win on that point.

    But the judges were quick to note the “contrast” with her pleadings about the legal impact of a vote, and said the initial point about the bill’s significance were “a more realistic assessment”.

    So winning on point one effectively lost the argument on point two
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,285
    kle4 said:

    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784

    Not sure the last paragraph was very helpful. Translating it I get:

    1) I'm not criticising asking the question
    2) But the answer was clear, so no more asking it that way please
    3) We need to focus on other things and move on from this debate
    4) We are hopelessly paralysed

    Since the last one is basically - we cannot do a) or b), as there is no majority for that, but we also cannot do nothing.
    He wants to become FM - that wouldn't be the status quo.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    kle4 said:

    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784

    Not sure the last paragraph was very helpful. Translating it I get:

    1) I'm not criticising asking the question
    2) But the answer was clear, so no more asking it that way please
    3) We need to focus on other things and move on from this debate
    4) We are hopelessly paralysed

    Since the last one is basically - we cannot do a) or b), as there is no majority for that, but we also cannot do nothing.
    Isn't his unspoken conclusion that "We can only move forward as part of UK, ie we let rUk decide for us"?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    edited November 23
    I must say the Supreme Court seems to on a practical level function well. You can watch the proceedings live and recorded, the website is clear and judgements are easy to find.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    Driver said:

    malcolmg said:

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


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

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

    Try again?
    A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal ,
    Try harder loser
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784

    Not sure the last paragraph was very helpful. Translating it I get:

    1) I'm not criticising asking the question
    2) But the answer was clear, so no more asking it that way please
    3) We need to focus on other things and move on from this debate
    4) We are hopelessly paralysed

    Since the last one is basically - we cannot do a) or b), as there is no majority for that, but we also cannot do nothing.
    Isn't his unspoken conclusion that "We can only move forward as part of UK, ie we let rUk decide for us"?
    It was his 'there is no majority for the status quo' which threw me. It's true, but by adding it made it look like he is saying we cannot move forward, back or stand still.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    But the question asked by Nationalists on this board is a fair one: how does Scotland exercise its right of self- determination if the UK Parliament will not give consent to a second referendum? In the latest Scottish elections a very small majority voted for parties committed to a second referendum. To me, as a democrat, that is important. I do not agree that things have materially changed since 2014 but my individual view is not important. The collective view of the Scottish people who voted was in favour of a second referendum (just).

    In the last election campaign, Nippy said "A vote for the SNP is NOT a vote for Indy"

    An SNP majority at Holyrood is NOT the Scottish people expressing their will for Indy
    I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    Lots of charts flying around to show how much the UK economy has 'underperformed' since the #Brexit vote... 🙄

    In reality, the differences in where GDP has ended up are relatively small, given the volatility in the meantime and huge shocks from #Covid and the #energycrisis... 👇




    https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1595372747890245635
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    Eabhal said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

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

    Standard grade history was very good at explaining just how important Scotland was for colonising the Empire - whether it was the slave trade or Scots regiments putting down the locals.
    And what has that to do with Scotland now being treated as a colony. Trying to be a smartarse re Merchant city to someone who is 3 times your age and has been there more times than you have wiped your butt is not clever
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,285
    malcolmg said:

    Driver said:

    malcolmg said:

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


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

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

    Try again?
    A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal ,
    Try harder loser
    I'm not the one who lost in 2014 and again today...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

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

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

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

    If you've forgotten:

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

    But it is irrelevant if it is not in the document.
    Carnyx you were jsut going by past history, it was a sensible assumption.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    edited November 23
    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    Poor Wales, overlooked again.
    True, my humble apologies to Wales.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784

    Not sure the last paragraph was very helpful. Translating it I get:

    1) I'm not criticising asking the question
    2) But the answer was clear, so no more asking it that way please
    3) We need to focus on other things and move on from this debate
    4) We are hopelessly paralysed

    Since the last one is basically - we cannot do a) or b), as there is no majority for that, but we also cannot do nothing.
    Isn't his unspoken conclusion that "We can only move forward as part of UK, ie we let rUk decide for us"?
    It was his 'there is no majority for the status quo' which threw me. It's true, but by adding it made it look like he is saying we cannot move forward, back or stand still.
    One can only make sense of it if he means it in terms of there being no 'proven' majority ie tested in a referendum now (not 2014, which is an interesting admission on his part, perhaps uinconscious).

    But then he can't claim in the same breath there is no 'majority' for a referendum in the same sense, as that has been tested by election and parliamentary seats as I noted earlier.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,712
    I think my #Chloe4Leader campaign was a bit of a failure.

    If she hadn't been booted out of cabinet by Rishi Rich she might well have tried to stay on.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,294
    edited November 23
    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas

    She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
    Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
    Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    Leon said:

    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion

    Over Hyfud's dead tank
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

    Scotland doesn't 'have' its own parliament. It has one lent to it temporarily by Westminster. Quite different.
    I was wondering how many 'new' states get created thesedays. There have been explosions of new entities (oftentimes accompanied by actual explosions) at various points such as in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, and a bunch of former Imperial possessions from the end of WW2, but otherwise the existing states tend to keep a pretty closed shop.
    been shedloads got out of the Empire , Scotland is the last colony left.
    If it was a colony it would have no MPs and no Parliament at Holyrood
    Tumbleweed
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    malcolmg said:

    Driver said:

    malcolmg said:

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


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

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

    Try again?
    A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal ,
    Try harder loser
    I think he has somewhat more connection with Scotland than merely being born there.

    Reed was Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Education Department from 1988 to 1989, and to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department from 1989 to 1995. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1995, and Advocate Depute in 1996. He was appointed a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, the country's College of Justice, in 1998, with the judicial title, Lord Reed. He sat initially as a Judge of the Outer House, becoming Principal Commercial Judge in 2006...He was promoted to the Inner House (First Division) in 2008

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reed,_Baron_Reed_of_Allermuir

    His Scottishness may not affect your view of the Court or the decision, but you're surely not saying he is not a true scotsman?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    Leon said:

    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion

    sooner the better
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    But the question asked by Nationalists on this board is a fair one: how does Scotland exercise its right of self- determination if the UK Parliament will not give consent to a second referendum? In the latest Scottish elections a very small majority voted for parties committed to a second referendum. To me, as a democrat, that is important. I do not agree that things have materially changed since 2014 but my individual view is not important. The collective view of the Scottish people who voted was in favour of a second referendum (just).

    In the last election campaign, Nippy said "A vote for the SNP is NOT a vote for Indy"

    An SNP majority at Holyrood is NOT the Scottish people expressing their will for Indy
    I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.
    And numbers of MPs and MSPs for Scottish constituencies, too.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250
    DavidL said:

    I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.

    So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    Driver said:

    malcolmg said:

    Driver said:

    malcolmg said:

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


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

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

    Try again?
    A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal ,
    Try harder loser
    I'm not the one who lost in 2014 and again today...
    Bully for you arsehole
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,712
    kle4 said:

    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784

    Not sure the last paragraph was very helpful. Translating it I get:

    1) I'm not criticising asking the question
    2) But the answer was clear, so no more asking it that way please
    3) We need to focus on other things and move on from this debate
    4) We are hopelessly paralysed

    Since the last one is basically - we cannot do a) or b), as there is no majority for that, but we also cannot do nothing.
    5) We can throw a dead cat on the table in the shape of a big swinging dick in the female changing rooms.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,285
    edited November 23
    kinabalu said:

    Driver said:

    kinabalu said:

    Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas

    She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time.
    Hardly. If they lose again the agitation for a third referendum will start immediately.
    Look at the deeper politics rather than trot out this cliche. Sure there can be noises - you don't expect the SNP to just drop the N - but it will have to be backburnered as a practical proposition. The Scots will not keep voting No to independence and at the same time keep voting into power a party with a commitment to yet another referendum front and centre of its manifesto. The SNP's choice will be to retain the concrete short term referendum commitment or to retain power. Either way, the upshot is the same. Sindy goes on long pause. Sturgeon knows this.
    I just don't see it that way. The SNP are so driven by separatism that without it they are nothing. And as long as 40% want another referendum they'll keep winning, so why drop it?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,294
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas

    She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time. Therefore the challenge is to bring two strands of political activity to simultaneous fruition:

    1. Build majority support in Scotland for independence. 2. Build pressure on the UK government to permit a vote on it.

    Both these are needed. Neither one alone gets the job done. It's a tough challenge and she'll quite likely fail - but the idea she isn't really up for it is perverse imo. I see no evidence whatsoever that she's doing anything but plotting the best realistic route to an independent Scotland by the end of the decade.
    Yes, doesn't seem plausible. Though I am curious what those Sindy supporters who do think Sturgeon doesn't really want one, thinks she or the SNP should do now, or the independence movement more generally.
    Interests me too. You can't do UDI with a country split 50/50. You have to hold a legal referendum and win it. I think her twin strategy - build domestic support for Sindy, build pressure on Westminster to grant a vote on it - is the only realistic route.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.

    So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
    And then?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,450
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Let’s also be honest - do we really think Sturgeon wanted a referendum? You’ve only got to look at the Indy papers the gov have recently published to get a sense they’ve run out of ideas

    She certainly wants one. Independence can only come via a referendum. The question is when - since she knows if it's lost again that is it for a long time. Therefore the challenge is to bring two strands of political activity to simultaneous fruition:

    1. Build majority support in Scotland for independence. 2. Build pressure on the UK government to permit a vote on it.

    Both these are needed. Neither one alone gets the job done. It's a tough challenge and she'll quite likely fail - but the idea she isn't really up for it is perverse imo. I see no evidence whatsoever that she's doing anything but plotting the best realistic route to an independent Scotland by the end of the decade.
    Yes, doesn't seem plausible. Though I am curious what those Sindy supporters who do think Sturgeon doesn't really want one, thinks she or the SNP should do now, or the independence movement more generally.
    Only good thing out of it is that it has put a rocket up Sturgeon's arse, she has to do something now, she has run out of carrots and options. She has a date to fulfil in 2023. Her sheeple will need to start thinking about their job security if she does not hold a referendum next year
  • eekeek Posts: 21,826
    edited November 23
    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

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

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

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

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

    Standard grade history was very good at explaining just how important Scotland was for colonising the Empire - whether it was the slave trade or Scots regiments putting down the locals.
    And what has that to do with Scotland now being treated as a colony. Trying to be a smartarse re Merchant city to someone who is 3 times your age and has been there more times than you have wiped your butt is not clever
    Worth saying that Glasgow was very much anything for a few extra quid even if it went against the aims of London and elsewhere. As the supplying of food and arms to the Confederacy demonstrates.

    https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/history/running-blockade-how-clyde-shipyards-18722461

    and https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01n8jf6 (sadly not currently available because it was rather good)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    edited November 23
    As I've said before, I do enjoy legal snark. This point for example definitely feels like a euphemism.

    The other arguments advanced by counsel for the Advocate General [on the scheme of legislative scrutiny) are less cogent.

    And who could not follow such clear talk as

    Counsel next follow the same process of reasoning in relation to paragraph
    1(f)(ii). The phrase “reserved matters” is used, in the context of a definition of limited
    powers, in a number of provisions of the Scotland Act, besides its use in defining
    legislative competence in section 29(2)(b), and hence its use, through its incorporation
    by section 54, in defining devolved competence. In particular, they submit, it is used in
    relation to non-legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament in sections 23(5) and (6),
    and in relation to United Kingdom ministers and cross-border public authorities in
    sections 56(4)(a), 58(4)(b), 88(2)(b) and (6), and 91(3)(d). Against that background,
    they submit that paragraph 1(f)(ii) is concerned only with questions arising under those
    provisions, and not with questions relating to the legislative competence of the
    Scottish Parliament, which are intended to arise only under section 33, after a Bill has
    been passed, or under paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 6, after legislation has been
    enacted


    (Actually I find top court legal judgements tend to be pretty easy to follow, which is a testament to the drafters)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.

    So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
    And then?
    Well, maybe focus on how they are actually being governed, up there in Woke-istan....
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    edited November 23
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.

    So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
    And then?
    That assumes Mr Sunak actually replies and rejects it, but delay would have its own risks.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,978

    Lots of charts flying around to show how much the UK economy has 'underperformed' since the #Brexit vote... 🙄

    In reality, the differences in where GDP has ended up are relatively small, given the volatility in the meantime and huge shocks from #Covid and the #energycrisis... 👇




    https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1595372747890245635

    The narcissism of small differences.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion

    sooner the better
    It’s time, @malcolmg

    Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482

    Leon said:

    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion

    Over Hyfud's dead tank
    He'll be fine, all the NLAWs have been sent to Ukraine.
  • What happens if at GE2024 the Scot Nats* get fewer than 50% of the vote in Scotland?

    Scottish Nationalism killed stone cold for a generation?

    *SNP, Green, Alba et al.
  • malcolmg said:

    Driver said:

    malcolmg said:

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


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

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

    Try again?
    A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal ,
    Try harder loser
    A very fitting example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    BREAKING: EU parliament votes in favour of labelling Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism - Reuters

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1595374549884878848
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,000
    kle4 said:

    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784

    Not sure the last paragraph was very helpful. Translating it I get:

    1) I'm not criticising asking the question
    2) But the answer was clear, so no more asking it that way please
    3) We need to focus on other things and move on from this debate
    4) We are hopelessly paralysed

    Since the last one is basically - we cannot do a) or b), as there is no majority for that, but we also cannot do nothing.
    It's not the last paragraph though. Try reading the full statement, including the 2nd part.

    Basically, appealing to the adults in the room.

    https://twitter.com/AnasSarwar/status/1595363409867964417?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1595363409867964417|twgr^01f98eedf9f14e2a134bb6da6586ef2d08cc933f|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    edited November 23
    Hah, this feels like a rather pointed observation, for all courts must love it as it keeps them in business.

    In response, counsel for the Advocate General again raise the bifurcation point,
    and ask why, if questions of that kind about reserved matters were intended to fall
    within paragraph 1(f), that provision does not also extend to all the other aspects of
    legislative competence. There is undeniable force in this objection, and possible
    explanations of why the draftsman might have singled out reserved matters would be
    speculative. Nevertheless, a lack of tidiness in legislation is not unknown, and the fact
    that a particular interpretation would have an untidy outcome is not a fatal objection if
    that construction is nevertheless the most persuasive
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148

    What happens if at GE2024 the Scot Nats* get fewer than 50% of the vote in Scotland?

    Scottish Nationalism killed stone cold for a generation?

    *SNP, Green, Alba et al.

    Haven't seen Conservatism killed stone cold despite getting rather less than 50% repeatedly in GEs.

    Also forgetting a fair chunk of Slab voters are pro-indy.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion

    Over Hyfud's dead tank
    He'll be fine, all the NLAWs have been sent to Ukraine.
    Hang on, I've seen Braveheart, so I think any English heading to the borders would be in a lot of trouble, at least if Mel Gibson turns out.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683

    malcolmg said:

    Driver said:

    malcolmg said:

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


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

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

    Try again?
    A Lickspittle who may have been born in Scotland , big deal ,
    Try harder loser
    A very fitting example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
    No truer Scotsman than ones who don't actually live in Scotland, preferring Bath, or Sweden.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.

    So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
    And then?
    Well, maybe focus on how they are actually being governed, up there in Woke-istan....
    Scottish politicians have only paid a passing interest in the job of actually running the country all my adult life. They would far rather wax long and lyrical about constitutional matters. The state of public services up here is replete with examples of the consequences.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    edited November 23
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.

    So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
    And then?
    You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied

    But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence

    Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK

    It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one

    If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed



  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482

    kle4 said:

    Interesting tone in Anas Sarwar’s statement on the Supreme Court decision. No gloating or “I told you so. Written with moderate SNP voters in mind



    https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1595370756602486784

    Not sure the last paragraph was very helpful. Translating it I get:

    1) I'm not criticising asking the question
    2) But the answer was clear, so no more asking it that way please
    3) We need to focus on other things and move on from this debate
    4) We are hopelessly paralysed

    Since the last one is basically - we cannot do a) or b), as there is no majority for that, but we also cannot do nothing.
    It's not the last paragraph though. Try reading the full statement, including the 2nd part.

    Basically, appealing to the adults in the room.

    https://twitter.com/AnasSarwar/status/1595363409867964417?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1595363409867964417|twgr^01f98eedf9f14e2a134bb6da6586ef2d08cc933f|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news
    Ah, was going by what was visible on this page.

    So he was saying there is no majority for Indy, not majority for a referendum, not a majority for the status quo, but there is a majority for 'change', which he leaves undefined and doesn't really make sense either since the change he wants, Labour change, is not a majority in Scotland.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion

    sooner the better
    It’s time, @malcolmg

    Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
    Shillelaghs? Wrong islands.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,123
    I think the judgment is correct from a legal perspective. Morally, it is a grey area.

    The Scottish Parliament can’t legislate for a referendum but the last election for that parliament returned a majority who wanted one, but (now shown) it is outwith their competence to deliver it.

    Which goes back to the status of Westminster as the supreme and sovereign legislature, and the ultimate arbiter. That seems to me constitutionally correct. The moral argument will drag on though. It feels like something will have to give, but I’m not sure what,when or how.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,266
    Chris said:

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


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

    A bit hamstrung by the fact that Lord Reed is Scottish, surely.
    No True Scotchman….
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion

    sooner the better
    It’s time, @malcolmg

    Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
    Shillelaghs? Wrong islands.
    I thought my citation of “uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo” would make it clear I was a-jokin’
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,294
    edited November 23
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    But the question asked by Nationalists on this board is a fair one: how does Scotland exercise its right of self- determination if the UK Parliament will not give consent to a second referendum? In the latest Scottish elections a very small majority voted for parties committed to a second referendum. To me, as a democrat, that is important. I do not agree that things have materially changed since 2014 but my individual view is not important. The collective view of the Scottish people who voted was in favour of a second referendum (just).

    In the last election campaign, Nippy said "A vote for the SNP is NOT a vote for Indy"

    An SNP majority at Holyrood is NOT the Scottish people expressing their will for Indy
    The Scottish election gave a mandate for Sturgeon to try and hold a Sindy referendum. She's doing exactly this. She's trying.

    Her deeper slow-burn strategy is to build democratic and moral pressure on Westminster to grant a legally binding vote. Being denied today by the UK courts adds to this. The next step if it happens - the SNP winning almost all the Scottish seats at the GE on a manifesto saying one thing - will add more.

    Finally - crack - the vote kind of *has* to happen. By that time support for Sindy in Scotland, fuelled by all of this, is enough to get Yes over the line.

    This is Sturgeon's plan to realize an independent Scotland by the end of this decade. Might work, might not, but if anybody has a better plan I'd love to hear it. And if anybody thinks this *isn't* what her plan is I'd love to hear why on earth they think that.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    edited November 23
    1/ While disappointed by it I respect ruling of @UKSupremeCourt - it doesn't make law, only interprets it.
    A law that doesn't allow Scotland to choose our own future without Westminster consent exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership & makes case for Indy...

    2/ Scottish democracy will not be denied.
    Today’s ruling blocks one route to Scotland’s voice being heard on independence - but in a democracy our voice cannot and will not be silenced.
    I'll make a full statement later this morning - tune in around 11.30am


    https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1595361356546539522

    Sturgeon live:

    https://news.stv.tv/politics/supreme-court-to-rule-on-whether-scottish-parliament-has-power-to-hold-indyref2
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,148
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion

    sooner the better
    It’s time, @malcolmg

    Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
    Shillelaghs? Wrong islands.
    I thought my citation of “uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo” would make it clear I was a-jokin’
    Nevertheless, there are literary standards. If you make a joke about whisky you don't reference Bushmills.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    edited November 23

    I think my #Chloe4Leader campaign was a bit of a failure.

    If she hadn't been booted out of cabinet by Rishi Rich she might well have tried to stay on.

    Especially with the abuse that female MPs get, you can excuse them for thinking "I'm 40, I have made great contacts in Government and can get a job where I can be more low-profile, work 10 til 4 and still have 20-odd years of making good money for far less hassle. And maybe have some respect from and for colleagues, most of whom are thicker than me but better at arse-licking."

    Plus, social media has made being an MP a truly shit career. Poor pay, zero respect, zero restraint from those attacking you. Full on abuse. The idealism of undertaking public service comes up against the reality and it's easy to say "sod this for a game of soldiers".
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree. But if you add up the votes of those that voted SNP, Green and Alba, who were all committed to a second referendum they amounted to just over 50% of the votes cast.

    So they need to formally request a Section 30 order, and Rishi can formally reject it.
    And then?
    You make a good point. Scots deserve a formal method that can allow for referendums in the future. It’s all very well saying Scotland doesn’t have the legal and political right - and it doesn’t - democracy cannot forever be denied

    But equally the UK (and England Wales and NI) must also have a say. Or Scotland could have a vote on secession every six months. No state can tolerate that constant turmoil and endless recession as the uncertainty destroys confidence

    Labour - the likely next govt - should set up a joint royal commission. With people from across the UK

    It should set thresholds for calling a sindyref. Once in a generation for a start. 20 years? 25? 30? And it requires a majority in Holyrood to then ask for one

    If these conditions are met: Sindyref is allowed



    I think that we need to find a way forward that Scottish people can vote for if that is what they want. A Labour government might well be better placed to address that.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,924
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Scotland always has the option of armed rebellion

    sooner the better
    It’s time, @malcolmg

    Time for to take your father’s musket from the thatch, to scrape the moss off you shillelagh, to find your dirk, your gralloch, you bob o’ stechie, your uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo, and march on Berwick Tesco
    Shillelaghs? Wrong islands.
    I thought my citation of “uisgeaf-hoolie-hoolie-drechnlln-na-woo” would make it clear I was a-jokin’
    Nevertheless, there are literary standards. If you make a joke about whisky you don't reference Bushmills.
    It was a deliberate mistake. Shillelaghs are Irish. I know this. I was winding malc up by feigning an insolent ignorance of all things Scotch
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683

    1/ While disappointed by it I respect ruling of @UKSupremeCourt - it doesn't make law, only interprets it.
    A law that doesn't allow Scotland to choose our own future without Westminster consent exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership & makes case for Indy...

    2/ Scottish democracy will not be denied.
    Today’s ruling blocks one route to Scotland’s voice being heard on independence - but in a democracy our voice cannot and will not be silenced.
    I'll make a full statement later this morning - tune in around 11.30am


    https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1595361356546539522

    Sturgeon live:

    https://news.stv.tv/politics/supreme-court-to-rule-on-whether-scottish-parliament-has-power-to-hold-indyref2

    Can the English parliament vote to end the union? Oh wait, I don't have an English parliament. Although I have MP's in the UK parliament, I feel I must be a colony of the Scots, who have both MP's and MSP's. Life is very unfair.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    1/ 7 Remember the Scottish Government saying that the GRR Bill was in line with international best practice.

    I wonder what they'll say in response to this from the UN....

    2/7
    The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes & consequences on Scotland's GRR bill:

    "I share the concern that such proposals would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring ....


    https://twitter.com/Cyclefree2/status/1595363240766279683
This discussion has been closed.