SKY NewsSturgeon to seek 'legal referendum' on Scottish independence

[Thomas]

Ok


So, if I am wrong, and the Scottish Devolved Government need neither consent nor approval from westminster......


How come there has been no indyref2 ??


I'm s not as if Sturgeon hasn't ranter enough about having one ...

Its going through the courts just now john.

Keatings v Advocate General, the referendum powers case

https://www.scottishlawreports.org.uk/headlines/keatings-v-advocate-general-the-referendum-powers-case/

[johnofgwent]

another good article here john on the imaginary law that says westminster has to agree to a referenudm.

Ok


So, if I am wrong, and the Scottish Devolved Government need neither consent nor approval from westminster......


How come there has been no indyref2 ??


I'm s not as if Sturgeon hasn't ranter enough about having one ...

[Thomas]

True Tommy, but is is not as though there is much going on else where is there?

Brexit is sorting itself out, the Yanks are taking a break after four years of the Donald and even this flu thingy seems to be calming down.

So that leaves you. We want to hear tales of the fight for independence. Will Wee Krankie's mad charge across the heather lead to victory as happened at Cromdale or will she be impaled on the bayonets of Boris' stolid redcoats? It does not have to be true, but it should be interesting.

Thats it to be honest borkie , everyone is just scunnered tae feck with this shamdemic.

Apart from the odd rumblngs within the snp and yes movement , the usual fighting and ego`s clashing , the murray court case and the continuing fallout between sturgeon and salmond , not a lot happening to be honest.

Boris coming up tae castlemilk was a wee welcome distraction from the monotony of covid feckin 19. Boris got to show the english voter he was attampting to mark his territory like a dog before scampering away , the snp publicly told boris not to come while privately praying he would , and he did much to their delight , and glaswegians and wider scotland got to take the piss and hurl a bit of abuse at the blond muppet.

All in all everyone had a wee bit from boris distraction , so no too bad.

[Borchester]

Borkie , you keep saying this time and again , and no one is saying otherwise.

True Tommy, but is is not as though there is much going on else where is there?

Brexit is sorting itself out, the Yanks are taking a break after four years of the Donald and even this flu thingy seems to be calming down.

So that leaves you. We want to hear tales of the fight for independence. Will Wee Krankie's mad charge across the heather lead to victory as happened at Cromdale or will she be impaled on the bayonets of Boris' stolid redcoats? It does not have to be true, but it should be interesting.

[Thomas]

Possibly not, although I think that the English don't really give a sod one way or another about Scottish independence.

Borkie , you keep saying this time and again , and no one is saying otherwise.

Its almost as if you are trying to convince yourself on the matter.

No one in england  , or very few i would imangine  , gives a feck wether scotland ends the union , and very few in scotland give a feck what people in england think on the matter.


So now we have this agreed on and sorted , no need to keep repeating it is there?

The fact of the matter though , your politicians do care , and dont want to let scotland go , and that is the nub of the argument. So while we are bored to tears with the can kicking , obfustication , and of course unionists burying their heads in the sand , hoping boris keeps saying no and the problem disappears , until scottish indy happens , we are where we are , and the fighting metaphorically speaking will continue.

[Borchester]

I don't think there is much point in trying to guess which of the many routes that may take the Scots to independence.

Possibly not, although I think that the English don't really give a sod one way or another about Scottish independence. Boris would rather maintain the union than not, but he knows that it won't cost him much in the way of votes and might even do him a bit of good.

I imagine that Wee Krankie would prefer an orderly break from the rest of the UK rather than Morayloon storming through the glens with a fiery cross, but whether that is possible remains to be seen. 

[Good old]

Well, given that the law as it applies north as well as south of the border actually REQUIRES Westminster to consent, what are you saying ?


That the Scots will do a Zimbabwe and declare UDI ? I admit that started out well enough but eventually the economy became the victim of local despots...


Or do you see them follow the proven to work example of the Irish and begin a campaign of slaughtering English policemen ?


I can't see that myself, not least because UNLIKE Irish Nationalists who enjoy murder and mayhem, and Welsh ones who seem to have limited their activities to damage to property and only threats to life, not (yet) actual murder, I'm hard pressed to find media reports of Scottish Nationalist terrorist acts of recent years or recent (victorian and later) history.


Of course the Scots might have had better control of the press ....

I don't think there is much point in trying to guess which of the many routes that may take the Scots to independence.
Except to say  if the Westminster government doesn't engage in the idea in a really positive way, then the door will be wide open to whatever works best for the Scots. It has to be accepted that if  the Scots , truly want independence, they will demand it. And it will be a pointless exercise for any Westminster government, to try to conduct a policy of ignoring the demand and failing to recognise that Scotland, can not be United against its will with England.

[Borchester]

another good article here john on the imaginary law that says westminster has to agree to a referenudm.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/31/gavin-anderson-et-al-the-independence-referendum-legality-and-the-contested-constitution-widening-the-debate/


So contrary to westmisnter propaganda , it is not a legal fact , nor does any law say , that scotland cannot hold a referendum without the consent of westmisnter.

Legal or not, Boris is unlikely to send the Redcoats to storm Holyrood in the event of a referendum. That said, I imagine that Ms Sturgeon would rather have the whole matter run according to Hoyle for no better reason than that even if she does win, there will still be yards of detail to sort out and that is best done between folk who reckonise each others right to exist

[Thomas]

Well, given that the law as it applies north as well as south of the border actually REQUIRES Westminster to consent, what are you saying ?

another good article here john on the imaginary law that says westminster has to agree to a referenudm.

Gavin Anderson et al: The Independence Referendum, Legality and the Contested Constitution: Widening the Debate

Contrary to the views of the UK Government and a number of influential commentators, on this blog and elsewhere, we believe that the legality of a referendum Bill passed under the Scotland Act as it currently stands is a more open question than has been generally acknowledged.

The UK Government's argument that a referendum Bill would be unlawful rests on two premises: first, that section 29(2)(b) of the Scotland Act, which provides that an Act of the Scottish Parliament is outwith competence if it "relates to" a reserved matter, is to be interpreted literally; and, second, that the purpose of a referendum Bill, having regard to its effect in all the circumstances (s.29(3)), would be to dissolve the Union.  Since the Union is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament, the Bill would, they argue, therefore relate to a reserved matter and would be unlawful.

Both premises of this argument are contestable.

Which of these constitutional narratives would the courts – and particularly the Supreme Court – endorse?  The unitary state narrative would appear to be ruled out by the recent decision in Axa General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, which rejected the argument that, at least for the purposes of judicial review at common law, the Scottish Parliament is to be understood as a subordinate legislature

However, the union-state narrative also gains support, not only from the political background to devolution, but also from the decision in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 and subsequent cases, to the effect that the fundamental principles of Scots constitutional law are not necessarily the same as those of English constitutional law, a view apparently endorsed by Lord Hope in R (Jackson) v Attorney-General [2006] 1 AC 262.

The risk to the authority of the courts – a risk which, it should be noted, would not be avoided by taking refuge in a literal interpretation of the Scotland Act – therefore suggests that the UK and Scottish Governments would indeed be wiser to agree on an express transfer of powers.  Nevertheless, because of the fundamental nature of the issues at stake, and the inherent contestability of constitutional law questions of this kind, it is important that any such agreement should be not taken as an unequivocal endorsement of the view that Westminster alone is entitled to authorise a referendum on the constitutional future of any part of the UK.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/31/gavin-anderson-et-al-the-independence-referendum-legality-and-the-contested-constitution-widening-the-debate/


So contrary to westmisnter propaganda , it is not a legal fact , nor does any law say , that scotland cannot hold a referendum without the consent of westmisnter.

[Thomas]

and the claim of right endorsed by the westmisnter parliament two half years ago

[Thomas]

What about the smith commission report as well signed by all the main uk parties john?

[Thomas]

Well, given that the law as it applies north as well as south of the border actually REQUIRES Westminster to consent, what are you saying ?

Which law is that then john?

We have been discussing this topic of "legal referendums" since 2011   , and this isnt true.

First point yet again , anyone anywhere in the uk for any reason can hold a referendum on anything without your parliaments approval.

second point , the edinburgh agreement as we have discussed many a time wasnt westminster giving approval for scotland holding a referendum contrary to your media propaganda. It was merely a vehicle to save face and allow cameron to say he would agree with the result when salmond told him scotland was holding a referendum.

Third point , scotland doesnt need englands permission to leave the uk. Scotland is a joint signatory with england  in the 1707 treaty that created the uk. Its like saying one partner cannot leave an abusive  marriage with out the other partners consent.

I think you always confuse scotlands legal position in the uk with wales. They are totally different , wales and ireland were taken by the english kingdom by right of conquest , and wales was annexed to the english kingdom in 1284 by the statute of rhuddlan , then later in 1536 , it legally became part of england , having all welsh laws etc stripped away , and the english administrators in wales didnt even know westmisnter had passed the acts of union.

Scotland joined in 1707 by the bribery of its parliament , but retained the right to leave via its elected representatives.

You are confusing the constotutional power of the scottish devolved parliament , which is indeed a creature of westmisnter , and the constitutional power of the scottish nation in treaty with england.

Throughout the years prior to devolution , the conservative governments of both thatcher and major consistently said if scotland wanted to leave the union all it had to do was elect a majority of national mps.



Thatcher herself said this. So im not sure what you are talking about.

The snp are the ones who want to go down the referendum route. They believe this to be the fairest way of attaining scot indy. There are gradualists in the party who want to gently steer the boat towards indy , and others who want to take independence.

The point is though , whatever you might wish to believe , tell me john , which country has westmisnter successfully told they couldnt have independence?

From what little i know of the brit empire , every single country westmisnter said couldnt have independence left within a matter of years and took it one way or the other.

Its a case of the uk supporters and westmisnter doing the same thing over and over  , that lost them a 63 nation empire , and expecting a different result. The snp are milkiing boris johnsons no referendum to attain higher and higher support for indy.

Have you learned nothing from the last five years regarding brexit in your own country where anti demcorats telling people they can't have somehting merely pushes support for it through the roof.

[johnofgwent]

If Indy is wanted ,they won't wait for any length of time, or any Westminster politician to approve of it.

Well, given that the law as it applies north as well as south of the border actually REQUIRES Westminster to consent, what are you saying ?


That the Scots will do a Zimbabwe and declare UDI ? I admit that started out well enough but eventually the economy became the victim of local despots...


Or do you see them follow the proven to work example of the Irish and begin a campaign of slaughtering English policemen ?


I can't see that myself, not least because UNLIKE Irish Nationalists who enjoy murder and mayhem, and Welsh ones who seem to have limited their activities to damage to property and only threats to life, not (yet) actual murder, I'm hard pressed to find media reports of Scottish Nationalist terrorist acts of recent years or recent (victorian and later) history.


Of course the Scots might have had better control of the press ....

[Nick]

If Indy is wanted ,they won't wait for any length of time, or any Westminster politician to approve of it.
Starmer may not appeal to everyone as a future leader of the country, but the idea that anyone in this present cabinet, or on the blue benches will be a better choice than him is a sad reflection of a shit future.
If there is a better alternative to Starmer, with better workable policies for the future, then they have yet to revel either themselves ,  or any support for the working classes and save the nation policies.
The way we are headed , in a hundred years it could be we will not be ruled by Westminster, and Scotland, will have lost its independence all over again. 

Future leader? You're having a laugh surely?

Starmer and the Labour Party don't know what they want, how can they possibly know what the country wants? 😆

[Good old]

No Indy for 100 years then 

If Indy is wanted ,they won't wait for any length of time, or any Westminster politician to approve of it.
Starmer may not appeal to everyone as a future leader of the country, but the idea that anyone in this present cabinet, or on the blue benches will be a better choice than him is a sad reflection of a shit future.
If there is a better alternative to Starmer, with better workable policies for the future, then they have yet to revel either themselves ,  or any support for the working classes and save the nation policies.
The way we are headed , in a hundred years it could be we will not be ruled by Westminster, and Scotland, will have lost its independence all over again.