Scottish Independence

[Moulin Yarns]

The SNP plan to use the pound is utter folly as if the £ is retained as our currency then economic growth will be limited and places our economy at high risk.

I also agree that the lack of talk of talk about Independence dosen't sit easy with me and it sounds like numbers attending aren't great.

Independence debate is on page 14 of the agenda, Jimmy is just stirring it as usual.

[James310]

Independence debate is on page 14 of the agenda, Jimmy is just stirring it as usual.

That's the code of conduct isn't it? What's that got to do with actual Independence?

[ronaldo7]

Don't look at the SNP. The SNP Conference takes place on Saturday and it's the things not on the agenda rather than what's on it that is most interesting. Nothing at all on Independence, currency, Central Banks, borders and trading and joining the EU. The conference of a party expecting a referendum in 12 months time?

Alternatively, we're looking at

Land reform
Re railing of the north east of Scotland.
Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry link.
Uk's Rwanda plan
Educating new Scots on their voting rights.
Alternatives to detention.
Abortion services in Scotland.
A real living pension.
Homes for the homeless.
Transition to renewable energy.
Domestic energy savings.
Carbon capture and storage.
Independence principles- building our movement.
Highland and islands infrastructure investment package.
Disinformation, and the 2023 independence campaign.

And much, much more.

I know you said you'd not discuss independence again until the court case was heard, and it must be difficult for you with the Tories ripping up the UK at the moment, but it's not long now. Patience.

[James310]

Alternatively, we're looking at

Land reform
Re railing of the north east of Scotland.
Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry link.
Uk's Rwanda plan
Educating new Scots on their voting rights.
Alternatives to detention.
Abortion services in Scotland.
A real living pension.
Homes for the homeless.
Transition to renewable energy.
Domestic energy savings.
Carbon capture and storage.
Independence principles- building our movement.
Highland and islands infrastructure investment package.
Disinformation, and the 2023 independence campaign.

And much, much more.

I know you said you'd not discuss independence again until the court case was heard, and it must be difficult for you with the Tories ripping up the UK at the moment, but it's not long now. Patience.

I seem to have to make the same point repeatedly, they are all excellent things to talk about, my point being for the leading Independence party to not be talking about currency, borders and trading etc when there is a supposed referendum in 12 months time feels odd, even an Indy supporter agreed with me on this point. I know it's an unwritten rule for some not to in any shape or form be critical of the SNP though so I understand why.

Yes the Tory's have done those who support not breaking up the UK no favours, that's why we need a GE and a new UK Government. If the last few weeks hasn't moved the polls towards Independence you have to wonder what will.

Although I have heard so many times that X or Y is the end of the UK, and yet here we are with all major polling companies showing No winning for the 1st time in a long time.

[ronaldo7]

I seem to have to make the same point repeatedly, they are all excellent things to talk about, my point being for the leading Independence party to not be talking about currency, borders and trading etc when there is a supposed referendum in 12 months time feels odd, even an Indy supporter agreed with me on this point. I know it's an unwritten rule for some not to in any shape or form be critical of the SNP though so I understand why.

Yes the Tory's have done those who support not breaking up the UK no favours, that's why we need a GE and a new UK Government. If the last few weeks hasn't moved the polls towards Independence you have to wonder what will.

Although I have heard so many times that X or Y is the end of the UK, and yet here we are with all major polling companies showing No winning for the 1st time in a long time.

Making the same point doesn't make it right.

You also said you'd wait until the court case.

Just because we're not talking to you about those issues, doesn't mean they're not being discussed.

You'd have to join the party to find out though.

[grunt]

... my point being for the leading Independence party to not be talking about currency, borders and trading etc when there is a supposed referendum in 12 months time feels odd ...
So not only do you think that Independence is wrong for Scotland, you also think that the SNP is going about the approach to Independence in the wrong way.

Do you spend your whole day thinking about the SNP? Perhaps you should join the party and put all that intellectual energy to good use?

[James310]

So not only do you think that Independence is wrong for Scotland, you also think that the SNP is going about the approach to Independence in the wrong way.

Do you spend your whole day thinking about the SNP? Perhaps you should join the party and put all that intellectual energy to good use?

My posts stand out because generally they are the opposite of what the majority are saying. If you don't want to accept challenge or criticism of a government then maybe you should move to a country where that kind of thing is frowned upon, even illegal. You seem to think everyone and everything is some kind of conspiracy theory to "get the SNP" or attack Independence though so I think you would have an issue with anything that wasn't explicitly pro SNP or pro Indy.

I would prefer to avoid the personal insults though if we can? Stick to the topic, keep it non personal.

[Ozyhibby]

My posts stand out because generally they are the opposite of what the majority are saying. If you don't want to accept challenge or criticism of a government then maybe you should move to a country where that kind of thing is frowned upon, even illegal. You seem to think everyone and everything is some kind of conspiracy theory to "get the SNP" or attack Independence though so I think you would have an issue with anything that wasn't explicitly pro SNP or pro Indy.

I would prefer to avoid the personal insults though if we can? Stick to the topic, keep it non personal.

At some point in the next month or so there will be a ruling from the Supreme Court. Then things will get a bit interesting. Until then, there’s not much to talk about.
I expect that whatever the ruling says, the text will pored over first before next steps are decided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

If you don't want to accept challenge or criticism of a government then maybe you should move to a country where that kind of thing is frowned upon, even illegal.:greengrin

You seem to think everyone and everything is some kind of conspiracy theory to "get the SNP" or attack Independence though so I think you would have an issue with anything that wasn't explicitly pro SNP or pro Indy.
No, I don't think so.

I would prefer to avoid the personal insults though if we can? Stick to the topic, keep it non personal.It wasn't intended as an insult, and I'm surprised you think it was. But I'm sorry if you felt insulted. I simply noticed that for someone who appears to disagree with the idea of independence, you seem to post about it - and the SNP - a lot.

[Stairway 2 7]

:greengrin
No, I don't think so.
It wasn't intended as an insult, and I'm surprised you think it was. But I'm sorry if you felt insulted. I simply noticed that for someone who appears to disagree with the idea of independence, you seem to post about it - and the SNP - a lot.

Would people who disagree and agree with independence not post a similar amount. I feel strongly against the tories so I post more about them than any other party

[James310]

:greengrin
No, I don't think so.
It wasn't intended as an insult, and I'm surprised you think it was. But I'm sorry if you felt insulted. I simply noticed that for someone who appears to disagree with the idea of independence, you seem to post about it - and the SNP - a lot.

About the same as the people who disagree with the Tory's, probably less so compared to many. But I think you support and would agree with many of those posts so they don't stand out, yet nearly every time I post it attracts quite a number of replies. Way more than someone who posted something negative about Liz Truss for example.

Let's stick to the topic though.

[James310]

Would people who disagree and agree with independence not post a similar amount. I feel strongly against the tories so I post more about them than any other party

Exactly what I just said. Nobody has a go at them though.

[Steven79]

Independence debate is on page 14 of the agenda, Jimmy is just stirring it as usual.It should be on page 1 if they were serious about it.

The sooner the SNP get a new leader the better as I think she's playing us all.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

It should be on page 1 if they were serious about it.

The sooner the SNP get a new leader the better as I think she's playing us all.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Without checking again, I think that it is the final day so the fact its on page 14 makes sense.

[Hibrandenburg]

SNP talk about Independence, SNP bad, you need to get on with the day job?

SNP get on with the day job, SNP bad, why don't you get on with that what people elected you to do?

Talk about being schizophrenic.

[James310]

SNP talk about Independence, SNP bad, you need to get on with the day job?

SNP get on with the day job, SNP bad, why don't you get on with that what people elected you to do?

Talk about being schizophrenic.

I am not saying not talking about Independence is SNP bad, as someone who doesn't support it I think it's great they are ignoring the issues and not discussing them. SNP good infact. I just thought they would be doing more.

I saw this on Twitter from Robin McAlpine, he is most certainly on the left in Scottish politics and was/is part of Common Weal, a body that has been suggested on here as a group that should be involved in the Indy campaign.

http://robinmcalpine.org/independence-the-most-crucial-moment-since-oil/

"What I will do very soon is raise the biggest alarm I can to suggest that the fact that the Scottish Government and the SNP leadership appears clueless and paralysed at this moment raises very significant questions about whether they have the capability to lead anyone anywhere."

[Moulin Yarns]

I am not saying not talking about Independence is SNP bad, as someone who doesn't support it I think it's great they are ignoring the issues and not discussing them. SNP good infact. I just thought they would be doing more.

I saw this on Twitter from Robin McAlpine, he is most certainly on the left in Scottish politics and was/is part of Common Weal, a body that has been suggested on here as a group that should be involved in the Indy campaign.

http://robinmcalpine.org/independence-the-most-crucial-moment-since-oil/

"What I will do very soon is raise the biggest alarm I can to suggest that the fact that the Scottish Government and the SNP leadership appears clueless and paralysed at this moment raises very significant questions about whether they have the capability to lead anyone anywhere."

Thanks for linking the article.

From 29 paragraphs on the positive case for independence, you can only refer to the third paragraph. You may want to find something in the rest of the article of interest as it really is a good read. 👍

[James310]

Thanks for linking the article.

From 29 paragraphs on the positive case for independence, you can only refer to the third paragraph. You may want to find something in the rest of the article of interest as it really is a good read. 👍

So are you not angry that things like this aren't being discussed at conference or by the SNP? You are kinda making my point for me. 👍

[Just Alf]

You know you've lost an argument when you do the complaining on behalf of those you don't agree with hoping they'll chime in agreeing .... and they just don't get hooked no matter how hard you try.

[The Harp Awakes]

You know you've lost an argument when you do the complaining on behalf of those you don't agree with hoping they'll chime in, in agreement, .... and they just don't get hooked no matter how hard you try.

The very thought which went through my head when reading the last dozen or so posts :top marks

[Moulin Yarns]

So are you not angry that things like this aren't being discussed at conference or by the SNP? You are kinda making my point for me. 👍

Considering what a **** show the UK government is there are a lot of things to be angry about, the independence movement is certainly not one of them.

Let's wait to see what happens at the supreme Court.

[James310]

You know you've lost an argument when you do the complaining on behalf of those you don't agree with hoping they'll chime in agreeing .... and they just don't get hooked no matter how hard you try.

What argument am I losing? 😂

[James310]

Considering what a **** show the UK government is there are a lot of things to be angry about, the independence movement is certainly not one of them.

Let's wait to see what happens at the supreme Court.

Surely at a time when the UK is such a **** show is when you go in strong and hard. But I get people disagree with me so looks like I have lost whatever argument it was. 😂

[WeeRussell]

Get on with the day job.
Why are they not focussed on independence?
My posts stand-out.
Why are people talking about my posts. Keep to the topic.
You think everything is a conspiracy against the SNP.
Let’s not get personal.
Mon Scottish Labour.

[The Harp Awakes]

I seem to have to make the same point repeatedly, they are all excellent things to talk about, my point being for the leading Independence party to not be talking about currency, borders and trading etc when there is a supposed referendum in 12 months time feels odd, even an Indy supporter agreed with me on this point. I know it's an unwritten rule for some not to in any shape or form be critical of the SNP though so I understand why.

Yes the Tory's have done those who support not breaking up the UK no favours, that's why we need a GE and a new UK Government. If the last few weeks hasn't moved the polls towards Independence you have to wonder what will.

Although I have heard so many times that X or Y is the end of the UK, and yet here we are with all major polling companies showing No winning for the 1st time in a long time.

I genuinely think the opinion polls on independence are a bit of a sideshow. All you can take from them I think, is that the nation is currently split 50/50 down the middle in terms of being pro or anti independence.

Also your theory about the incompetence of the Tory Westminster Government being inextricably linked to an increase in support for independence is a moot point.

The level of support for independence I'm sure fluctuates due to many factors. The 3 Royal events which have occurred over the last year or so and the associated blanket media coverage of them, may well have had a temporary negative impact on support for independence.

From a pro-indy perspective though, if we were to enter a referendum campaign with ~50% support (as opposed to <30% in early 2014 - which was shown exclusively across polls), then I'd be pretty confident of Yes winning comfortably.

[Ozyhibby]

What argument am I losing? [emoji23]

I’m not even sure what argument you are making these days?[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

I’m not even sure what argument you are making these days?[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You and me both in this case. 😂

[Kato]

Surely at a time when the UK is such a **** show is when you go in strong and hard. But I get people disagree with me so looks like I have lost whatever argument it was. [emoji23]Is the SNP conference finished? Didn't notice it.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

So are you not angry that things like this aren't being discussed at conference or by the SNP? You are kinda making my point for me. [emoji106]The only one fuming about this appears to be you.

Don't worry, I'm sure once they realise the get on with the day job attack lines aren't going to work they'll get you some new stuff.

[J-C]

So are you not angry that things like this aren't being discussed at conference or by the SNP? You are kinda making my point for me. 👍

Why should they be debating/talking about independence at the party conference?

The SNP stand for independence and being voted back into power by the Scottish people have been given the mandate to hold another referendum which was in the last manifesto. Do we really need the SNP party and it's members going over something which has already been decided on, or maybe better to discuss what's happening right now in Scotland.

[Jack]

Imagine we could go our own way. I'm not suggesting Spain is anything other than a great place to go on holiday. It will be interesting to see how this pans out and whether their rich flee the country.

Spain cuts taxes for the poor and raises taxes for super rich

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/spain-cuts-taxes-for-the-poor-and-raises-taxes-for-super-rich-336267/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=sfeu

[Kato]

Imagine we could go our own way. I'm not suggesting Spain is anything other than a great place to go on holiday. It will be interesting to see how this pans out and whether their rich flee the country.

Spain cuts taxes for the poor and raises taxes for super rich

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/spain-cuts-taxes-for-the-poor-and-raises-taxes-for-super-rich-336267/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=sfeuSome of them will most of them won't. Some of them might seek help from our banks and their magic islands. Works for our super-rich but I doubt they'll catch up with the Russians any time soon.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

A devout unionist apparently seething about the lack of independence chat at the SNP conference is a development I wasn't really expecting.

[Moulin Yarns]

A devout unionist apparently seething about the lack of independence chat at the SNP conference is a development I wasn't really expecting.

If I didn't know any better I would think it was a parody account 😁

[James310]

A devout unionist apparently seething about the lack of independence chat at the SNP conference is a development I wasn't really expecting.

I thought I had explained, why would I be seething or angry? That makes no sense. I did wonder why so few Indy supporters seemed comfortable that things like currency, borders etc were not being discussed but from the large reaction on here obviously they are not that bothered. That's all.

[James310]

If I didn't know any better I would think it was a parody account 😁

That doesn't make sense. What do you mean?

[Just Alf]

I guess we're just happy the day job is higher priority at the moment.... also, its not like the independence discussions are being forgotten about.

[Jack]

Anas Sarwar and the linesman constantly harping on about the SNP constantly harping on about independence whilst the reverse is normally the case and the SNP do a pretty good job of running Scotland despite Westminsters best efforts.

Seems the fixation of harping on about independence is catching on in the wider unionists communities.

[Ozyhibby]

Anas Sarwar and the linesman constantly harping on about the SNP constantly harping on about independence whilst the reverse is normally the case and the SNP do a pretty good job of running Scotland despite Westminsters best efforts.

Seems the fixation of harping on about independence is catching on in the wider unionists communities.

Running Scotland is about to get much harder. London is going to cut spending massively which will force the SNP to do the same here. Sarwar and Ross will slam these SNP cuts at the same time as saying we need to stick with the UK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

That doesn't make sense. What do you mean?

I would have thought it was obvious. Everyone else has pointed out that you have gone from complaining about the SNP for talking about Independence to complaining that they aren't talking about Independence.


Edited!

[HNA12]

If I didn't know any better I would think it was a parody account ��


I would have thought it was obvious. Everyone else has pointed out that you have gone from complaining about the SNP for talking about Independence to complaining that they aren't talking about Independence. Either you've been hacked or this is a parody account.

We’ve asked before for people to stick to directly debating the issues with other posters rather then making indirect snidey comments. Everybody on here should at least expect to be treated respectfully by others no matter how unpopular their views may be.
Could we all please bear that in mind when posting, thank you.

[ronaldo7]

Some movement prior to the supreme court judgement.

Supreme Court 'should find UK undermining democracy in indyref2 case'

THE Supreme Court may decide that Scotland does not have the power to hold indyref2 – but it should also conclude the UK Government is “undermining democracy” through its refusal to countenance a second vote, two constitutional experts have said.

They warned that the Supreme Court (UKSC) should note that manifesto pledges made by Scotland’s elected leadership were “at risk of being thwarted by bodies with less democratic legitimacy”.

"The problem is ... the behaviour of the UK Government, in its unwillingness to recognise the ‘material changes in circumstances’ since 2014, and an apparent unwillingness to negotiate with a democratically elected leader," the experts said.

The intervention comes just one week before the UK’s highest court is due to hear the first day of oral arguments about whether the Scottish Parliament can legislate to hold a second independence referendum.

Scotland’s top law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain (below), has argued that such a vote falls within devolved powers because it would be purely consultative and of no automatic legal effect.

However, the UK Government’s top law officer for Scotland, Advocate General Keith Stewart, has said that holding an independence vote would be reserved to Westminster as it concretely “relates to” the Union.

Writing for the UK Constitutional Law Association, University of Cambridge academics Shona Wilson Stark and Raffael Fasel made clear that they agree with the UK Government’s arguments.

“Based on the wording of the Scotland Act 1998, we do not believe that the UKSC should decide that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a referendum without a Section 30 order,” they wrote.

A Section 30 order would allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a reserved area, and is the mechanism which was used to let Holyrood hold the first independence referendum in 2014.

However, Wilson Stark and Fasel further argue that there is nothing to prevent the UKSC “from taking seriously the constitutional importance of the SNP’s manifesto and the principle of democracy more broadly”.

The academics point – as they note the SNP also did in their submission to the UKSC – to the Salisbury Convention. This says that the Lords will not block bills mentioned in ruling party’s election manifestos.

Wilson Stark and Fasel said: “Obviously, the Salisbury convention itself does not apply: we are not dealing with a House of Lords voting down government bills that aim to deliver on election manifestos, but rather with a national government that is resisting the free exercise of democratic will-formation in a devolved nation.

“Yet, the SNP have a strong case that a similar underlying principle is engaged. In both contexts, we are faced with elected groups’ manifesto pledges that are at risk of being thwarted by bodies with less democratic legitimacy.”

They add: “The principle of democracy plays a key role in the UK constitution and cannot easily be discarded, especially by an executive body that lacks the same democratic legitimacy as the devolved legislature.”

The Cambridge academics say that while the UKSC may stop short of declaring democracy a legal (and not simply political) principle, that “does not stop it from declaring the UK Government’s actions unconstitutional in a political sense”.

Wilson Stark and Fasel point to precedent in Canada, and say that such a statement against the Tory government could “be an appropriate means of attempting to break the deadlock by exerting some political pressure”.

'The problem is ... the behaviour of the UK Government'

They conclude: “In our view, the problem is neither the UKSC nor the legislation, but the behaviour of the UK Government, in its unwillingness to recognise the ‘material changes in circumstances’ since 2014, and an apparent unwillingness to negotiate with a democratically elected leader.

“The UK Government’s actions may not be contrary to law – but that does not mean that the UKSC cannot play an important role in attempting to encourage civilised negotiations.”

[Ozyhibby]

Some movement prior to the supreme court judgement.

Supreme Court 'should find UK undermining democracy in indyref2 case'

THE Supreme Court may decide that Scotland does not have the power to hold indyref2 – but it should also conclude the UK Government is “undermining democracy” through its refusal to countenance a second vote, two constitutional experts have said.

They warned that the Supreme Court (UKSC) should note that manifesto pledges made by Scotland’s elected leadership were “at risk of being thwarted by bodies with less democratic legitimacy”.

"The problem is ... the behaviour of the UK Government, in its unwillingness to recognise the ‘material changes in circumstances’ since 2014, and an apparent unwillingness to negotiate with a democratically elected leader," the experts said.

The intervention comes just one week before the UK’s highest court is due to hear the first day of oral arguments about whether the Scottish Parliament can legislate to hold a second independence referendum.

Scotland’s top law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain (below), has argued that such a vote falls within devolved powers because it would be purely consultative and of no automatic legal effect.

However, the UK Government’s top law officer for Scotland, Advocate General Keith Stewart, has said that holding an independence vote would be reserved to Westminster as it concretely “relates to” the Union.

Writing for the UK Constitutional Law Association, University of Cambridge academics Shona Wilson Stark and Raffael Fasel made clear that they agree with the UK Government’s arguments.

“Based on the wording of the Scotland Act 1998, we do not believe that the UKSC should decide that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a referendum without a Section 30 order,” they wrote.

A Section 30 order would allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a reserved area, and is the mechanism which was used to let Holyrood hold the first independence referendum in 2014.

However, Wilson Stark and Fasel further argue that there is nothing to prevent the UKSC “from taking seriously the constitutional importance of the SNP’s manifesto and the principle of democracy more broadly”.

The academics point – as they note the SNP also did in their submission to the UKSC – to the Salisbury Convention. This says that the Lords will not block bills mentioned in ruling party’s election manifestos.

Wilson Stark and Fasel said: “Obviously, the Salisbury convention itself does not apply: we are not dealing with a House of Lords voting down government bills that aim to deliver on election manifestos, but rather with a national government that is resisting the free exercise of democratic will-formation in a devolved nation.

“Yet, the SNP have a strong case that a similar underlying principle is engaged. In both contexts, we are faced with elected groups’ manifesto pledges that are at risk of being thwarted by bodies with less democratic legitimacy.”

They add: “The principle of democracy plays a key role in the UK constitution and cannot easily be discarded, especially by an executive body that lacks the same democratic legitimacy as the devolved legislature.”

The Cambridge academics say that while the UKSC may stop short of declaring democracy a legal (and not simply political) principle, that “does not stop it from declaring the UK Government’s actions unconstitutional in a political sense”.

Wilson Stark and Fasel point to precedent in Canada, and say that such a statement against the Tory government could “be an appropriate means of attempting to break the deadlock by exerting some political pressure”.

'The problem is ... the behaviour of the UK Government'

They conclude: “In our view, the problem is neither the UKSC nor the legislation, but the behaviour of the UK Government, in its unwillingness to recognise the ‘material changes in circumstances’ since 2014, and an apparent unwillingness to negotiate with a democratically elected leader.

“The UK Government’s actions may not be contrary to law – but that does not mean that the UKSC cannot play an important role in attempting to encourage civilised negotiations.”

That’s been my opinion for a while. Wish I was smart, I could have been a lawyer or judge.[emoji23]
While I think the Supreme Court won’t rule in SG’s favour, I do suspect that things will change due to how they word the ruling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

'The problem is ... the behaviour of the UK Government'

“The UK Government’s actions may not be contrary to law – but that does not mean that the UKSC cannot play an important role in attempting to encourage civilised negotiations.”

Has this tory government ever been part of 'civilised negotiations'?

With anyone?

[grunt]

Has this tory government ever been part of 'civilised negotiations'?

With anyone?
I see you spotted the flaw in their argument.

[Bostonhibby]

Has this tory government ever been part of 'civilised negotiations'?

With anyone?Get Civilised Negotiations Done?

Nah, one word too many and it would need a very long bus.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/analysis-poll-figures-demonstrate-constitutional-malaise-under-which-scottish-politics-strains-3869101

Not often I agree with Connor Matchet but he’s got this one spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

Some movement prior to the supreme court judgement.

Supreme Court 'should find UK undermining democracy in indyref2 case'

THE Supreme Court may decide that Scotland does not have the power to hold indyref2 – but it should also conclude the UK Government is “undermining democracy” through its refusal to countenance a second vote, two constitutional experts have said.

They warned that the Supreme Court (UKSC) should note that manifesto pledges made by Scotland’s elected leadership were “at risk of being thwarted by bodies with less democratic legitimacy”.

"The problem is ... the behaviour of the UK Government, in its unwillingness to recognise the ‘material changes in circumstances’ since 2014, and an apparent unwillingness to negotiate with a democratically elected leader," the experts said.

The intervention comes just one week before the UK’s highest court is due to hear the first day of oral arguments about whether the Scottish Parliament can legislate to hold a second independence referendum.

Scotland’s top law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain (below), has argued that such a vote falls within devolved powers because it would be purely consultative and of no automatic legal effect.

However, the UK Government’s top law officer for Scotland, Advocate General Keith Stewart, has said that holding an independence vote would be reserved to Westminster as it concretely “relates to” the Union.

Writing for the UK Constitutional Law Association, University of Cambridge academics Shona Wilson Stark and Raffael Fasel made clear that they agree with the UK Government’s arguments.

“Based on the wording of the Scotland Act 1998, we do not believe that the UKSC should decide that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a referendum without a Section 30 order,” they wrote.

A Section 30 order would allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a reserved area, and is the mechanism which was used to let Holyrood hold the first independence referendum in 2014.

However, Wilson Stark and Fasel further argue that there is nothing to prevent the UKSC “from taking seriously the constitutional importance of the SNP’s manifesto and the principle of democracy more broadly”.

The academics point – as they note the SNP also did in their submission to the UKSC – to the Salisbury Convention. This says that the Lords will not block bills mentioned in ruling party’s election manifestos.

Wilson Stark and Fasel said: “Obviously, the Salisbury convention itself does not apply: we are not dealing with a House of Lords voting down government bills that aim to deliver on election manifestos, but rather with a national government that is resisting the free exercise of democratic will-formation in a devolved nation.

“Yet, the SNP have a strong case that a similar underlying principle is engaged. In both contexts, we are faced with elected groups’ manifesto pledges that are at risk of being thwarted by bodies with less democratic legitimacy.”

They add: “The principle of democracy plays a key role in the UK constitution and cannot easily be discarded, especially by an executive body that lacks the same democratic legitimacy as the devolved legislature.”

The Cambridge academics say that while the UKSC may stop short of declaring democracy a legal (and not simply political) principle, that “does not stop it from declaring the UK Government’s actions unconstitutional in a political sense”.

Wilson Stark and Fasel point to precedent in Canada, and say that such a statement against the Tory government could “be an appropriate means of attempting to break the deadlock by exerting some political pressure”.

'The problem is ... the behaviour of the UK Government'

They conclude: “In our view, the problem is neither the UKSC nor the legislation, but the behaviour of the UK Government, in its unwillingness to recognise the ‘material changes in circumstances’ since 2014, and an apparent unwillingness to negotiate with a democratically elected leader.

“The UK Government’s actions may not be contrary to law – but that does not mean that the UKSC cannot play an important role in attempting to encourage civilised negotiations.”Democracy?

Piffle! We had that in 2014

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Some movement prior to the supreme court judgement.

Supreme Court 'should find UK undermining democracy in indyref2 case'

THE Supreme Court may decide that Scotland does not have the power to hold indyref2 – but it should also conclude the UK Government is “undermining democracy” through its refusal to countenance a second vote, two constitutional experts have said.

They warned that the Supreme Court (UKSC) should note that manifesto pledges made by Scotland’s elected leadership were “at risk of being thwarted by bodies with less democratic legitimacy”.

"The problem is ... the behaviour of the UK Government, in its unwillingness to recognise the ‘material changes in circumstances’ since 2014, and an apparent unwillingness to negotiate with a democratically elected leader," the experts said.

The intervention comes just one week before the UK’s highest court is due to hear the first day of oral arguments about whether the Scottish Parliament can legislate to hold a second independence referendum.

Scotland’s top law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain (below), has argued that such a vote falls within devolved powers because it would be purely consultative and of no automatic legal effect.

However, the UK Government’s top law officer for Scotland, Advocate General Keith Stewart, has said that holding an independence vote would be reserved to Westminster as it concretely “relates to” the Union.

Writing for the UK Constitutional Law Association, University of Cambridge academics Shona Wilson Stark and Raffael Fasel made clear that they agree with the UK Government’s arguments.

“Based on the wording of the Scotland Act 1998, we do not believe that the UKSC should decide that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a referendum without a Section 30 order,” they wrote.

A Section 30 order would allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a reserved area, and is the mechanism which was used to let Holyrood hold the first independence referendum in 2014.

However, Wilson Stark and Fasel further argue that there is nothing to prevent the UKSC “from taking seriously the constitutional importance of the SNP’s manifesto and the principle of democracy more broadly”.

The academics point – as they note the SNP also did in their submission to the UKSC – to the Salisbury Convention. This says that the Lords will not block bills mentioned in ruling party’s election manifestos.

Wilson Stark and Fasel said: “Obviously, the Salisbury convention itself does not apply: we are not dealing with a House of Lords voting down government bills that aim to deliver on election manifestos, but rather with a national government that is resisting the free exercise of democratic will-formation in a devolved nation.

“Yet, the SNP have a strong case that a similar underlying principle is engaged. In both contexts, we are faced with elected groups’ manifesto pledges that are at risk of being thwarted by bodies with less democratic legitimacy.”

They add: “The principle of democracy plays a key role in the UK constitution and cannot easily be discarded, especially by an executive body that lacks the same democratic legitimacy as the devolved legislature.”

The Cambridge academics say that while the UKSC may stop short of declaring democracy a legal (and not simply political) principle, that “does not stop it from declaring the UK Government’s actions unconstitutional in a political sense”.

Wilson Stark and Fasel point to precedent in Canada, and say that such a statement against the Tory government could “be an appropriate means of attempting to break the deadlock by exerting some political pressure”.

'The problem is ... the behaviour of the UK Government'

They conclude: “In our view, the problem is neither the UKSC nor the legislation, but the behaviour of the UK Government, in its unwillingness to recognise the ‘material changes in circumstances’ since 2014, and an apparent unwillingness to negotiate with a democratically elected leader.

“The UK Government’s actions may not be contrary to law – but that does not mean that the UKSC cannot play an important role in attempting to encourage civilised negotiations.”

With the release of this from the law geeks and a number of very positive polls for the SNP, I would have thought certain posters would have been itching to get in and chat Indy strategy?[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

With the release of this from the law geeks and a number of very positive polls for the SNP, I would have thought certain posters would have been itching to get in and chat Indy strategy?[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think 2 polls for Indy showing No still winning and a poll for Westminster voting intention showing if it was a de facto referendum then IndyRef2 would be lost is positive then I wonder what negative looks like. 😂

I guess you can spin it whatever way you like but the facts are 2 Indy polls from yesterday and both show No winning, keeping up the stance that all major polling companies have No in the lead. And you lose IndyRef2 on the brilliant strategy of a de facto referendum, tactical genius from Sturgeon.

If I was an Indy supporter still losing despite all that has gone on would not be a positive to me.

As for the legal stuff I think many SNP supporters don't understand what the SNP is fighting for in court, they are asking for an advisory referendum that they themselves say will have no impact on the Union, no impact....so meaningless.

Maybe part of the problem is too many SNP supporters are quite happy with just losing, not quite winning but being close enough is ok for them? It's a more comfortable world to be just losing and fighting the same old battles than the scary world of actually delivering Independence.

[Ozyhibby]

If you think 2 polls for Indy showing No still winning and a poll for Westminster voting intention showing if it was a de facto referendum then IndyRef2 would be lost is positive then I wonder what negative looks like. [emoji23]

I guess you can spin it whatever way you like but the facts are 2 Indy polls from yesterday and both show No winning, keeping up the stance that all major polling companies have No in the lead. And you lose IndyRef2 on the brilliant strategy of a de facto referendum, tactical genius from Sturgeon.

If I was an Indy supporter still losing despite all that has gone on would not be a positive to me.

As for the legal stuff I think many SNP supporters don't understand what the SNP is fighting for in court, they are asking for an advisory referendum that they themselves say will have no impact on the Union, no impact....so meaningless.

Maybe part of the problem is too many SNP supporters are quite happy with just losing, not quite winning but being close enough is ok for them? It's a more comfortable world to be just losing and fighting the same old battles than the scary world of actually delivering Independence.

Indy hasn’t been on the news agenda for a couple of months. Whenever it is in the news, support goes up. I think a 51-49 poll before a campaign, when it’s all that’s in the news, even begins is a good starting point.
As for the advisory part, all referendums are advisory. It’s an instruction to begin negotiations though. Certainly not meaningless. Politically, it can’t be ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Indy hasn’t been on the news agenda for a couple of months. Whenever it is in the news, support goes up. I think a 51-49 poll before a campaign, when it’s all that’s in the news, even begins is a good starting point.
As for the advisory part, all referendums are advisory. It’s an instruction to begin negotiations though. Certainly not meaningless. Politically, it can’t be ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There won't be a campaign as there won't be an actual referendum. Although the SNP are pretty much in campaign mode all the time. If you like polls another one out today saying only 35% want a referendum in 2023.

[Steven79]

If you think 2 polls for Indy showing No still winning and a poll for Westminster voting intention showing if it was a de facto referendum then IndyRef2 would be lost is positive then I wonder what negative looks like. 😂

I guess you can spin it whatever way you like but the facts are 2 Indy polls from yesterday and both show No winning, keeping up the stance that all major polling companies have No in the lead. And you lose IndyRef2 on the brilliant strategy of a de facto referendum, tactical genius from Sturgeon.

If I was an Indy supporter still losing despite all that has gone on would not be a positive to me.

As for the legal stuff I think many SNP supporters don't understand what the SNP is fighting for in court, they are asking for an advisory referendum that they themselves say will have no impact on the Union, no impact....so meaningless.

Maybe part of the problem is too many SNP supporters are quite happy with just losing, not quite winning but being close enough is ok for them? It's a more comfortable world to be just losing and fighting the same old battles than the scary world of actually delivering Independence.

The SNP have failed to drum up support when it should have been so easy and Its a failure but the Nicola Loyal can't see the wood for the trees.

I've campaigned for years and the movement has never been in a worse shape and that's all under her watch as when she took over it was never in better shape.

Even with a half decent strategy Yes should be ahead and probably approaching 60% by now.

So not only is the strategy wrong but like you say the vote next year is pointless as it would turn into a farce if it has no legal force as it would be like everyone else in the house having a vote to turn the heating on I would still tell them no...

The SNP have turned into New Labour.

[grunt]

If you think 2 polls for Indy showing No still winning and a poll for Westminster voting intention showing if it was a de facto referendum then IndyRef2 would be lost is positive then I wonder what negative looks like.
This chart shows the different poll results analysed by how the polling companies weight their results. Some big differences. It seems we should treat poll results with some discretion.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeVXDs1XoAAfc5o?format=png&name=medium

[Ozyhibby]

The SNP have failed to drum up support when it should have been so easy and Its a failure but the Nicola Loyal can't see the wood for the trees.

I've campaigned for years and the movement has never been in a worse shape and that's all under her watch as when she took over it was never in better shape.

Even with a half decent strategy Yes should be ahead and probably approaching 60% by now.

So not only is the strategy wrong but like you say the vote next year is pointless as it would turn into a farce if it has no legal force as it would be like everyone else in the house having a vote to turn the heating on I would still tell them no...

The SNP have turned into New Labour.

When was support for Indy in better shape?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

I've campaigned for years and the movement has never been in a worse shape ...
:greengrin

[James310]

When was support for Indy in better shape?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you were winning 20 odd polls in a row? It was here we go here we go and Indy is coming etc.

[Mon Dieu4]

The SNP have failed to drum up support when it should have been so easy and Its a failure but the Nicola Loyal can't see the wood for the trees.

I've campaigned for years and the movement has never been in a worse shape and that's all under her watch as when she took over it was never in better shape.

Even with a half decent strategy Yes should be ahead and probably approaching 60% by now.

So not only is the strategy wrong but like you say the vote next year is pointless as it would turn into a farce if it has no legal force as it would be like everyone else in the house having a vote to turn the heating on I would still tell them no...

The SNP have turned into New Labour.

I favour independence big time and want it asap but there is no danger we could have been at 60% in favour by now, too many people of either side are entrenched in their view and as things stand you are playing for the small percentage of people who are undecided

When you look at the age breakdown of opinion then it's going to be a bit of a waiting game if you want anywhere near 60%

[Ozyhibby]

When you were winning 20 odd polls in a row? It was here we go here we go and Indy is coming etc.

So also under NS?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zambernardi1875]

I favour independence big time and want it asap but there is no danger we could have been at 60% in favour by now, too many people of either side are entrenched in their view and as things stand you are playing for the small percentage of people who are undecided

When you look at the age breakdown of opinion then it's going to be a bit of a waiting game if you want anywhere near 60%

Age is one, the other is when these Tory cuts personally effect unionists, which will happen now over the next 2 years. They aren’t interested in the future of our children or having a better country it’s all about them. A disgusting trait to have, I’m surprised they openly admit to it so boastfully.

[James310]

So also under NS?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you think it's in better shape now or not? You asked the question.

[grunt]

As for the legal stuff I think many SNP supporters don't understand what the SNP is fighting for in court, they are asking for an advisory referendum that they themselves say will have no impact on the Union, no impact....so meaningless.
The Brexit referendum was advisory. I guess you think that had "no impact" and was "meaningless"?????

[Steven79]

The Brexit referendum was advisory. I guess you think that had "no impact" and was "meaningless"?????

Westminster had the power to enact the vote if it choose to do so.

The Scottish Parliament which is limited in powers can not do the same thing.

Technically the true Scottish Government sits at Westminster not in Edinburgh.

[James310]

The Brexit referendum was advisory. I guess you think that had "no impact" and was "meaningless"?????

It was, but the difference being there was a political will from all sides that the result would be implemented. If the SNP win the court case they themselves are saying it will have zero impact on the Union, think about that for a minute, they are arguing the referendum they want will have ZERO impact.....nobody before the Brexit referendum said the result would have zero impact on us leaving or staying in the EU. That's the difference.

[Zambernardi1875]

Westminster had the power to enact the vote if it choose to do so.

The Scottish Parliament which is limited in powers can not do the same thing.

Technically the true Scottish Government sits at Westminster not in Edinburgh.

The last two points are quite unusual concepts, Is there anywhere else on earth this happens?

[Steven79]

It was, but the difference being there was a political will from all sides that the result would be implemented. If the SNP win the court case they themselves are saying it will have zero impact on the Union, think about that for a minute, they are arguing the referendum they want will have ZERO impact.....nobody before the Brexit referendum said the result would have zero impact on us leaving or staying in the EU. That's the difference.

People will disagree with you but many that want independence but aren't in the SNP are saying the exact same thing and are frustrated as hell as it takes us no closer and seems a complete waste of time.

Also using a GE as a plebiscite means that 16-18 year olds and EU Nationals can't vote and they are mostly on the yes side so it means madness to me especially when you are wanting 50% + of the vote to win.

[James310]

The last two points are quite unusual concepts, Is there anywhere else on earth this happens?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35716653.amp


This is a good insight, most if not all devolved type of Parliaments won't have the powers of secession, look at Spain and what happened when Catalonia declared 'Independance', their leaders were arrested as it was illegal.

Scotland has one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world probably.

[Steven79]

The last two points are quite unusual concepts, Is there anywhere else on earth this happens?

Holyrood is a British invention and not a true Scottish Parliament as the powers still reside in Westminster.

After 1707 our MPS's that would have sat in Edinburgh moved down to London to sit so if we were to go independent then the MP's down in Westminster would come back to Scotland and form the first Government till an election surely?

[grunt]

People will disagree with you but many that want independence but aren't in the SNP are saying the exact same thing and are frustrated as hell as it takes us no closer and seems a complete waste of time.
What do you suggest should be the strategy?

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35716653.amp


This is a good insight, most if not all devolved type of Parliaments won't have the powers of secession, look at Spain and what happened when Catalonia declared 'Independance', their leaders were arrested as it was illegal.

Scotland has one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world probably.

Catalonia is not in a union with Spain?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Catalonia is not in a union with Spain?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, that's correct.

[Ozyhibby]

It was, but the difference being there was a political will from all sides that the result would be implemented. If the SNP win the court case they themselves are saying it will have zero impact on the Union, think about that for a minute, they are arguing the referendum they want will have ZERO impact.....nobody before the Brexit referendum said the result would have zero impact on us leaving or staying in the EU. That's the difference.

If it will have zero impact, why are unionists fighting it so hard that they are willing to ignore democracy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zambernardi1875]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35716653.amp


This is a good insight, most if not all devolved type of Parliaments won't have the powers of secession, look at Spain and what happened when Catalonia declared 'Independance', their leaders were arrested as it was illegal.

Scotland has one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world probably.

Is Catalonia a country? Do you consider Scotland a region also?

[James310]

People will disagree with you but many that want independence but aren't in the SNP are saying the exact same thing and are frustrated as hell as it takes us no closer and seems a complete waste of time.

Also using a GE as a plebiscite means that 16-18 year olds and EU Nationals can't vote and they are mostly on the yes side so it means madness to me especially when you are wanting 50% + of the vote to win.

The thing is, even if you get 51% what do you still need? A referendum, the exact same thing you needed before the GE.

[Zambernardi1875]

Holyrood is a British invention and not a true Scottish Parliament as the powers still reside in Westminster.

After 1707 our MPS's that would have sat in Edinburgh moved down to London to sit so if we were to go independent then the MP's down in Westminster would come back to Scotland and form the first Government till an election surely?

That didn’t answer my question

[Stairway 2 7]

Catalonia is not in a union with Spain?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Italy has been together less time than the UK. It doesn't really matter regardless. Scotland has a huge number of people that want to be separated, equal amount that want to stay.

That might not change even after independence. The divide could deepen initially, but I think like Taiwan youngsters will only feel Scottish as years go by

[James310]

Is Catalonia a country? Do you consider Scotland a region also?

I was more using that example in terms of devolved Parliaments. I am avoiding the rabbit hole of what is and isn't a country. 👍

[Zambernardi1875]

I was more using that example in terms of devolved Parliaments. I am avoiding the rabbit hole of what is and isn't a country. 👍

So a complete waste of time replying 👍

[Steven79]

What do you suggest should be the strategy?

Use the Scottish constitution.

Why do people assume that all the English laws that were written before 1707 still stand but all the Scottish ones have no legal power?

We have been gaslighted over the years to believe this.

The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law so why are we allowing our own constitution to be over ruled by the English one and our people governed by English Laws which have no bearing in Scotland?

Read the following link.
MacCormick v. Lord Advocate https://learninglink.oup.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_17.htm

The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done. Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions.

[grunt]

Use the Scottish constitution.
Fascinating. I'm no lawyer but the case you reference seems to be far from definitive.
Isn't what the SG are doing in taking the case to the SC about obtaining a current ruling on the extent of Scottish sovereignty?

[Steven79]

Fascinating. I'm no lawyer but the case you reference seems to be far from definitive.
Isn't what the SG are doing in taking the case to the SC about obtaining a current ruling on the extent of Scottish sovereignty?

Why could the Tories use a Henry VIII clause a few years ago as that predates the Union?

I just worry that the Supreme Court will fudge it rather than give an answer either way (And I don't see how they could rule against us)

[Moulin Yarns]

The thing is, even if you get 51% what do you still need? A referendum, the exact same thing you needed before the GE.

At the risk of stating the obvious, a yes vote at a legal referendum is just the start of negotiations, and if Westminster don't want to then where is democracy in this 'union of equals'?

You have stated there won't be a referendum, I wonder what inside information you have that nobody else has?


My biggest fear is former Labour supporters returning to the fold because they see a Labour Government is coming at the next General Election.

[James310]

At the risk of stating the obvious, a yes vote at a legal referendum is just the start of negotiations, and if Westminster don't want to then where is democracy in this 'union of equals'?

You have stated there won't be a referendum, I wonder what inside information you have that nobody else has?


My biggest fear is former Labour supporters returning to the fold because they see a Labour Government is coming at the next General Election.

What referendum? Why would any negotiations take place on the back of a referendum that the SNP say is meaningless and will have ZERO impact on the Union, if you and the SNP think it will lead to negotiations then it's the opposite of what they are saying it is and if it's not meaningless then it's not legal under the Scotland Act.

You can't claim it will start negotiations about the Union and at the same time claim it's a referendum that will have ZERO impact on the Union, which is exactly what the SNP is arguing in Court.

[Moulin Yarns]

What referendum? Why would any negotiations take place on the back of a referendum that the SNP say is meaningless and will have ZERO impact on the Union, if you and the SNP think it will lead to negotiations then it's the opposite of what they are saying it is and if it's not meaningless then it's not legal under the Scotland Act.

You can't claim it will start negotiations about the Union and at the same time claim it's a referendum that will have ZERO impact on the Union, which is exactly what the SNP is arguing in Court.

Correct. The referendum will have no effect on the union. But if the UK government then fail to enter into negotiations on the back of a yes vote where will democracy be in the UK?

[James310]

Correct. The referendum will have no effect on the union. But if the UK government then fail to enter into negotiations on the back of a yes vote where will democracy be in the UK?

If a meaningless referendum is approved that has no impact on the Union and has no S30 then it's likely to be boycotted by half the country. So the UK Government whether it be Labour or the Tory's can probably be quite comfortable ignoring a Yes victory of 99% on a turnout of maybe 40%.

The democracy card may be a strong one, but it was used a lot when all this was announced and still the polls show No winning.

[Moulin Yarns]

If a meaningless referendum is approved that has no impact on the Union and has no S30 then it's likely to be boycotted by half the country. So the UK Government whether it be Labour or the Tory's can probably be quite comfortable ignoring a Yes victory of 99% on a turnout of maybe 40%.

The democracy card may be a strong one, but it was used a lot when all this was announced and still the polls show No winning.

I refer you to Ronaldo's post yesterday afternoon.

[Steven79]

If a meaningless referendum is approved that has no impact on the Union and has no S30 then it's likely to be boycotted by half the country. So the UK Government whether it be Labour or the Tory's can probably be quite comfortable ignoring a Yes victory of 99% on a turnout of maybe 40%.

The democracy card may be a strong one, but it was used a lot when all this was announced and still the polls show No winning.We are never going to agree politically but I sadly agree with everything you have just said just now.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

We are never going to agree politically but I sadly agree with everything you have just said just now.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

If it’s so meaningless, why are unionists fighting so hard to prevent it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steven79]

If it’s so meaningless, why are unionists fighting so hard to prevent it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We won't get independence by using the Westminster system which is designed to keep us like rats in a maze.

They see Scotland as a possesion of London and will not just give it up what they deem to be theirs.

The only way to move forward is through the Scottish constitution which would be 100% legal under Scots law.

We are simply ending a treaty with another country but we have become bogged down with section 30 orders and asking permission from London to even have a vote.

They must laugh at our nation behind closed doors.

[Ozyhibby]

We won't get independence by using the Westminster system which is designed to keep us like rats in a maze.

They see Scotland as a possesion of London and will not just give it up what they deem to be theirs.

The only way to move forward is through the Scottish constitution which would be 100% legal under Scots law.

We are simply ending a treaty with another country but we have become bogged down with section 30 orders and asking permission from London to even have a vote.

They must laugh at our nation behind closed doors.

Sorry, what solution are you suggesting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

There won't be a campaign as there won't be an actual referendum. Although the SNP are pretty much in campaign mode all the time. If you like polls another one out today saying only 35% want a referendum in 2023.Incredibly there was a poster on here a day or so ago pulling the SNP up for NOT being in campaign mode at the upcoming conference. :agree:

[Ozyhibby]

Incredibly there was a poster on here a day or so ago pulling the SNP up for NOT being in campaign mode at the upcoming conference. :agree:

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Incredibly there was a poster on here a day or so ago pulling the SNP up for NOT being in campaign mode at the upcoming conference. :agree:

I was doing no such thing, I thought I had explained it multiple times, I was asking why Indy supporters were not angry the important things seemed to be being ignored. I am delighted they won't be talking about things like currency and borders as if they had a credible plan for these things it might make a difference.

[Moulin Yarns]

I was asking why Indy supporters were not angry the important things seemed to be being ignoredI am delighted they won't be talking about things

Except, there are lots of important things being debated according to the agenda!!!


I refer to the list that Ronaldo posted.

If only the tories could have done the same!

[marinello59]

Except, there are lots of important things being debated according to the agenda!!!


I refer to the list that Ronaldo posted.

If only the tories could have done the same!

Have the Green Branch put anything forward for discussion? Or are they just gonna cheer everything from the sidelines whilst scooping up those ministerial salaries? :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Have the Green Branch put anything forward for discussion? Or are they just gonna cheer everything from the sidelines whilst scooping up those ministerial salaries? :greengrin

You'll have to wait until the 15 and 16th of October 😉

[WeeRussell]

I was doing no such thing, I thought I had explained it multiple times, I was asking why Indy supporters were not angry the important things seemed to be being ignored. I am delighted they won't be talking about things like currency and borders as if they had a credible plan for these things it might make a difference.

You did explain it multiple times. You’re delighted about something you’ve imagined and the rest of us aren’t bothered as it didn’t happen.

I agree you’ve explained yourself more than enough. For everyone’s sanity, including your own, please let’s not have another page on it 😁

[James310]

You did explain it multiple times. You’re delighted about something you’ve imagined and the rest of us aren’t bothered as it didn’t happen.

I agree you’ve explained yourself more than enough. For everyone’s sanity, including your own, please let’s not have another page on it 😁

I get paid per post you see. Sorry. 😀

[Stairway 2 7]

Jeez that's grimm

olitics
@electpoliticsuk
·
POLL: 'Should Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?':

Remain: 51% (-1)
Leave: 36% (-2)
Undecided: 13% (+3)

Undecideds Excluded:

Remain: 59% (+1)
Leave: 41% (-1)

Via @Survation, On 28-29 September,
Changes w/ 3 May.

[Steven79]

Jeez that's grimm

olitics
@electpoliticsuk
·
POLL: 'Should Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?':

Remain: 51% (-1)
Leave: 36% (-2)
Undecided: 13% (+3)

Undecideds Excluded:

Remain: 59% (+1)
Leave: 41% (-1)

Via @Survation, On 28-29 September,
Changes w/ 3 May.


Scotland in Union Poll so they probably asked the question at a lodge.

[Moulin Yarns]

Scotland in Union Poll so they probably asked the question at a lodge.

It's the old argument of remains or leave rather than should Scotland be an independent country. The question is loaded.

[grunt]

Jeez that's grimm
Polling on behalf of Scotland in Union ....

[Ozyhibby]

Jeez that's grimm

olitics
@electpoliticsuk
·
POLL: 'Should Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?':

Remain: 51% (-1)
Leave: 36% (-2)
Undecided: 13% (+3)

Undecideds Excluded:

Remain: 59% (+1)
Leave: 41% (-1)

Via @Survation, On 28-29 September,
Changes w/ 3 May.

It’s not really. Scotland in Union always ask the same non standard question that would never get past the electoral commission.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Polling on behalf of Scotland in Union ....

By survation unless you don't trust their polling. The only thing that isn't tinfoil hat stuff is as ozzy says the way the question is asked. Would how the question is asked make a huge difference, I honestly think it's fascinating if it does. Scot gov have to fight for yes or no if that's the case. I think it's to much in the public psyche to change now I hope, people see yes as independence

[Stairway 2 7]

Notice yougov have it 43% yes 45% no. Which is actually better than it was and not bad after all the royal nonsense

[Kato]

Scotland in Union Poll so they probably asked the question at a lodge.Outside St Giles a couple of weeks ago.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

By survation unless you don't trust their polling. The only thing that isn't tinfoil hat stuff is as ozzy says the way the question is asked. Would how the question is asked make a huge difference, I honestly think it's fascinating if it does. Scot gov have to fight for yes or no if that's the case. I think it's to much in the public psyche to change now I hope, people see yes as independence

It is now too late to change the question. I’m sure the electoral commission have already said as much.
The way the question is asked is massively important to the result you get. My mate works for Yougov and he explained it to me. Not only is the way the question is asked important but also what questions are asked in the lead up to the main question. It’s likely that Scotland in Union asked questions like, ‘if Scotland votes to leave, how will you cope without your pension’? etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

It is now too late to change the question. I’m sure the electoral commission have already said as much.
The way the question is asked is massively important to the result you get. My mate works for Yougov and he explained it to me. Not only is the way the question is asked important but also what questions are asked in the lead up to the main question. It’s likely that Scotland in Union asked questions like, ‘if Scotland votes to leave, how will you cope without your pension’? etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheers, interesting stuff the psychology of it

[Mr Grieves]

Notice yougov have it 43% yes 45% no. Which is actually better than it was and not bad after all the royal nonsense


There's also a comres poll that has it 45% yes, 46% no.

[Stairway 2 7]

There's also a comres poll that has it 45% yes, 46% no.

It's scarily close. Lose this and that's it for 20 years. It can definitely be win though

[Ozyhibby]

It's scarily close. Lose this and that's it for 20 years. It can definitely be win though

Stakes are huge for both sides. Neither side can go into a campaign with any real confidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Although I wouldn't trust the bookmakers they have it

5/6 yes and evens no

Although the year of the next referendum is wider

2022 125/1
2023 9/2
2024 8/1
2025 or later 1/6

[J-C]

Jeez that's grimm

olitics
@electpoliticsuk
·
POLL: 'Should Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?':

Remain: 51% (-1)
Leave: 36% (-2)
Undecided: 13% (+3)

Undecideds Excluded:

Remain: 59% (+1)
Leave: 41% (-1)

Via @Survation, On 28-29 September,
Changes w/ 3 May.

What's the demographic of those asked, that's the 1st question.

[Stairway 2 7]

What's the demographic of those asked, that's the 1st question.

Data and questions here, ages 16+

[James310]

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1578430022578327553?t=2sve3pYhLZoA3P5DKVPbrg&s=19

"Nicola Sturgeon refused to name an expert who would argue there is a good economic case for Scottish independence when questioned by @PeterAdamSmith"

Why didn't she name Richard Murphy or the guy that runs the Business for Scotland website?

[grunt]

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1578430022578327553?t=2sve3pYhLZoA3P5DKVPbrg&s=19

"Nicola Sturgeon refused to name an expert who would argue there is a good economic case for Scottish independence when questioned by @PeterAdamSmith"

Why didn't she name Richard Murphy or the guy that runs the Business for Scotland website?

Pathetic.

[James310]

Pathetic.

Why? Because I make a point again that you don't agree with. How do you cope in the real world when someone has a different view or opinion?

[WeeRussell]

Why? Because I make a point again that you don't agree with. How do you cope in the real world when someone has a different view or opinion?

To be fair Grunt could easily have been talking about the headline ITV chose to tweet to summarise the video, or the interviewer himself.

Or of course your post.


Might be better to stick around and trust Kwarteng, Truss and the rest of the rabble and their experts right enough.

[grunt]

To be fair Grunt could easily have been talking about the headline ITV chose to tweet to summarise the video, or the interviewer himself.

Or of course your post.This.

[Jones28]

Keith Brown to kick off the conference talking about Independence


Someone is going to be pleased and disappointed in equal measure 😁

God I wish theyd shut up about independence.

[James310]

This.

In which case Grunt I apologise.

[grunt]

In which case Grunt I apologise.Thanks. I concede my reply was open to misinterpretation!

[Keith_M]

"Get On With The Day Job"

Today's front page headline in The Daily Mail (Scotland)

🤪

[ronaldo7]

"Get On With The Day Job"

Today's front page headline in The Daily Mail (Scotland)

🤪

Independence

Day job

Independence

Day job

Independence

Day job

Independence

Choose one which will be attacked by the MSM and their followers any day of the week.

[Skol]

Independence

Day job

Independence

Day job

Independence

Day job

Independence

Choose one which will be attacked by the MSM and their followers any day of the week.

They don’t have a good track record on either

[ronaldo7]

They don’t have a good track record on either

That's just your opinion, which you're entitled to.

Others think differently.

Is that allowed these days on here?

[Skol]

That's just your opinion, which you're entitled to.

Others think differently.

Is that allowed these days on here?

They have failed on at least one. The success or failure on the second is opinion.

[ronaldo7]

They have failed on at least one. The success or failure on the second is opinion.

They've not failed. You did.

We're still going.

[Skol]

They've not failed. You did.

We're still going.

Really. When did we gain independence ?

What did I fail on ?

[ronaldo7]

Really. When did we gain independence ?

What did I fail on ?

This is going nowhere pal. If you want to go fishing, try somewhere else.

Have a good night. 👍

[James310]

They've not failed. You did.

We're still going.

Still going nowhere though.

Already Angus Robertson is giving interviews where he is saying maybe there won't be a referendum next year, the backtracking has started.

"ANGUS Robertson has cast doubt on Nicola Sturgeon’s plan for a second independence referendum next year, conceding a vote may not happen then.

The SNP Constitution Secretary said Indyref2 would happen “sooner or later” but not necessarily on the First Minister’s preferred date of 19 October 2023."

I remember asking someone on here on a scale of 1 to 10 how confident he was of a referendum in 2023, he said 10. It's people like him that I feel sorry for, hopes being built up all time but being let down.

Article in the Times today as well saying growing disillusionment in the party with Nicola Sturgeons plans after a meeting at Napier University for all MSPs and MPs.

"An SNP minister is among those frustrated by the strategy, which is seen by some as an unnecessary gamble foisted upon the party without discussion or engagement. “People can see right through it,” one senior SNP MSP said. “People know when they feel it — not just when they hear it — and people aren’t feeling it.”

"Concerns were also raised at a recent meeting of Sturgeon’s MPs at Westminster. In the ensuing discussion it became clear they were confused about how the strategy would work."

Yes I know it's the Times which means some will dismiss but these will be verifiable sources, obviously no names but these are not going to be made up. Interesting she never discussed it with anyone outside her inner circle as well, you would think something as fundamental as the strategy would be discussed with more involvement from elected members.

The hall at conference was maybe 50% empty for the speeches as well, never seen that before at a SNP conference.

Prediction: the supreme court rules as expected no referendum, then a u turn on the de facto referendum plan as it makes no sense, it's lose lose for the SNP, and it's back to vote for us for another referendum and they get their comfortable jobs back in Westminster and Holyrood and round and round we go.

Now I may be spectacularly wrong, time will tell.

[grunt]

"Concerns were also raised at a recent meeting of Sturgeon’s MPs at Westminster. In the ensuing discussion it became clear they were confused about how the strategy would work."

"... it's back to vote for us for another referendum and they get their comfortable jobs back in Westminster and Holyrood and round and round we go."So the Westminster SNP MPs both criticise the FM for not doing enough to progress independence and at the same time they don't want progress towards independence because they're on a nice little earner with jobs in Westminster. Do you not see how incompatible those two arguments are?

Also, I note this "comfortable jobs" argument raising its tedious head again. There's absolutely no evidence for this, it's just another unionist lie made up to use as a weapon. How anyone can suggest that SNP MPs don't want an independent Scotland is frankly beyond my understanding.


Yes I know it's the Times which means some will dismiss but these will be verifiable sources, obviously no names but these are not going to be made up.The Times would never make stuff up, would they? :confused:


Now I may be spectacularly wrong, time will tell.Keeping your options open. Good idea.

[James310]

So the Westminster SNP MPs both criticise the FM for not doing enough to progress independence and at the same time they don't want progress towards independence because they're on a nice little earner with jobs in Westminster. Do you not see how incompatible those two arguments are?

Also, I note this "comfortable jobs" argument raising its tedious head again. There's absolutely no evidence for this, it's just another unionist lie made up to use as a weapon. How anyone can suggest that SNP MPs don't want an independent Scotland is frankly beyond my understanding.

The Times would never make stuff up, would they? :confused:

Keeping your options open. Good idea.

You posted a Tory bad story the other day from the Sun, don't you see the problem in that when you don't believe anything in the Times?

[grunt]

You posted a Tory bad story the other day from the Sun, don't you see the problem in that when you don't believe anything in the Times?
If you can't see the difference between the two stories then I can't help you.

[He's here!]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-looks-like-a-woman-eyeing-a-dignified-exit-3hnxgs2hq

Apologies if already posted. Much to agree with in Massie's piece IMHO.

[Jack]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-looks-like-a-woman-eyeing-a-dignified-exit-3hnxgs2hq

Apologies if already posted. Much to agree with in Massie's piece IMHO.

Subscription only but what I saw suggests the same failed wet dream the unionists have had since 2014.

[grunt]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-looks-like-a-woman-eyeing-a-dignified-exit-3hnxgs2hq

Apologies if already posted. Much to agree with in Massie's piece IMHO.
Imagine being Alex Massie. Such a seemingly unhappy man.

[Ozyhibby]

Imagine being Alex Massie. Such a seemingly unhappy man.

I don’t know, he’s been writing the same article for 10 years and he’s still getting paid for it.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Imagine being Alex Massie. Such a seemingly unhappy man.

Not always, I've seen him holding court with some pals of his in Teuchters Landing. Looked happy with himself then, mind you I've always been happy drinking in Teuchters Landing 😁

[He's here!]

Subscription only but what I saw suggests the same failed wet dream the unionists have had since 2014.

I usually find you get one 'free' read before it locks you out. Here's the full piece if you're interested:

By rights, Nicola Sturgeon should be looking forward to this weekend’s Scottish National Party conference with something close to relish. An unpopular prime minister has been replaced by one who has, in extraordinary scenes, already eclipsed her predecessor’s reputation for chaotic government. The mini-budget delivered by Kwasi Kwarteng contrived to be both a political and an economic disaster. Far from hitting the ground running, Liz Truss’s administration has merely hit the ground hard.

Since Westminster’s difficulties are the SNP’s opportunities, Sturgeon might have expected financial and political chaos in London to be the handmaiden for a breakthrough in the long, attritional struggle for Scottish independence.

As the nationalists gather in Aberdeen, however, there is no immediate sign that even this turmoil has caused Scots to reconsider their constitutional future. There has been a shift in the polls but it is one in which a collapsing Conservative vote in Scotland is accompanied by a surge in support for Labour.

Today’s Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times has SNP support remaining steady on 45 per cent but backing for Labour has increased by seven points since August. At 30 per cent, Labour are within touching distance of the point at which the party believes more than a dozen SNP seats could become realistic targets. The nationalists, top dogs for so long, suddenly risk seeming like wallflowers at someone else’s party.

In truth, Scotland has been a house divided against itself for years. When Sturgeon appeared with the King and Queen to celebrate the award of city status to Dunfermline — burial place of Scottish kings, including Robert the Bruce and birthplace of Charles I — she was booed by a significant portion of the crowds. Although few people would expect a crowd gathered to see the new King to be packed with diehard supporters of the First Minister, the jeering was a reminder that Sturgeon is Scotland’s most polarising political figure. After eight years in office, she enjoys near universal name recognition. Relatively few Scots do not have an opinion on her performance.

That appearance in Fife was followed by a tetchy exchange on Radio 4’s Today programme during which Sturgeon suggested that critics of her government’s gender recognition reforms — such as JK Rowling (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-t-shirt-calls-nicola-sturgeon-destroyer-of-womens-rights-r2nskrcx5) — were not in some sense “real feminists”. The Harry Potter author had posted a picture of herself on Twitter wearing a T-shirt calling Sturgeon a “destroyer of women’s rights”.

Then there was a series of defensive pre-conference media interviews during which she struggled to explain SNP policy on the currency an independent Scotland will use (for a time, Scotland would informally use the pound without the support of the Bank of England, in a manner akin to Montenegro and the euro). And critics have branded SNP claims that UK taxpayers would continue to pay for Scottish pensions after independence as “fantasy economics”.

Sturgeon also lashed out at Truss (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/absurd-radio-silence-from-truss-says-sturgeon-x6c52w6wl) for not yet picking up the telephone to her more than a month after becoming prime minister, while Boris Johnson and Theresa May held talks within days of being appointed.

During the Tory leadership contest, Truss called Sturgeon an “attention seeker” who was best ignored, and Conservative ministers distrust the nationalist leader who has a habit of publicly relaying private conversations. Sturgeon also complained about Truss’s plan to issue up to 100 new North Sea oil and gas exploration licences to boost energy security.

Sturgeon’s strategy for independence has been overtaken by events. Circumstances that applied as recently as June no longer apply. In early summer, the first minister boldly promised a referendum that will, she must continue to insist, be held on October 19 next year. Vanishingly few people believe this is a realistic prospect.

This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the question of the Scottish parliament’s unilateral right to legislate for an independence referendum but few legal experts believe the court will agree with the interpretationof the Scottish government.
Should that prove to be the case, Sturgeon insists that the setback will be only temporary. The next Westminster election will instead become a “de facto referendum” on independence and should the SNP win more than 50 per cent of the vote — which it has never achieved — Sturgeon will consider that a mandate for independence. It is by no means clear how this might be accepted in reality, in law, or by the international community.

The sense that an endgame is approaching persists. Not for independence itself but, rather, for Sturgeon. The first minister is unchallengeable within the SNP but the number of her pro-independence critics is growing. Alex Salmond’s Alba party has attracted some of the nationalists most likely to criticise Sturgeon but even among the faithful, doubts cannot be ignored.

Behind it all lurks this nagging question: “If not now, after all this, then when?” If, some independence supporters note, neither Brexit nor Boris Johnson have persuaded Scots that the risks of independence are outweighed by the risks of Union, why should it be assumed that Liz Truss will finish the job of pushing voters towards independence?

Sturgeon’s strategy has been to talk about new pushes for independence without doing much to drive these forward. New campaigns have been promised and none has led to a meaningful breakthrough. Scotland remains a country cleaved in two on the question of its constitutional future and, after nearly eight years as first minister, Sturgeon’s ability to win fresh converts is open to question.

“There’s an undercurrent among even loyal SNP members that the party is going nowhere,” says Alex Neil, the former nationalist health secretary. He discerns a palpable drop in “enthusiasm”, observing that “the party looks tired and there’s no proper strategy. The only thing that’s keeping things going is Westminster chaos.” Quietly, plenty of SNP parliamentarians agree with Neil’s criticism.

The party’s tightly-controlled conference — there is no debate on independence strategy that branch offices may seek to amend — is no kind of forum for the airing of these concerns but nor may they be suppressed for ever.

Increasingly the suspicion gains ground that Sturgeon is nearing her endgame and the “de facto referendum” gambit may, if it fails, offer her a means by which she can then make a dignified exit from Bute House. In the absence of a compelling strategy, a half-baked plan will have to do.

For years the SNP has argued there is no functional difference between Labour and the Conservatives. Both accept the result of the Brexit referendum; neither believes the time is right for another independence plebiscite. Labour are, in the nationalists’ preferred formulation, little more than “Red Tories”. Sturgeon repeated this view on Friday, arguing that Sir Keir Starmer is “desperately” trying to appeal to voters in England “by being a pale imitation of the Tories as opposed to being a really positive radical alternative”.

Thanks to the SNP’s political supremacy, Sturgeon’s approval ratings remain positive but recent polls show that, for the first time, Starmer has a higher net positive rating in Scotland than Sturgeon. A YouGov survey commissioned by The Times last week found that Starmer had a +13 rating in Scotland — albeit with about a third of voters unable to say whether they think the Labour leader is doing well or not — while Sturgeon’s rating is +11.

The prospect of a Labour Party that can win in England, however, also boosts Labour in Scotland. In 2017, the surge in support for Jeremy Corbyn helped Labour take six seats from the SNP. A Labour Party 20 points ahead in the polls in the UK as a whole is well placed to at least match 2017’s performance in Scotland. The SNP is painfully aware that a Labour majority at Westminster might reset the entirety of British politics.

In such circumstances, the SNP could win the Scottish portion of the election with 45 per cent of the vote but find themselves in an essentially powerless position. Worse still, the nationalists would have lost Sturgeon’s “de facto referendum”.

At that point, even another crushing victory might easily seem like a defeat. This is the logic of the strategy Sturgeon has so far insisted can deliver independence.

In truth, independence is not something in Sturgeon’s gift. Nor can it be delivered on a timetable of her choosing. The people, as she often likes to note, are sovereign. And for the time being the people still say no. Sturgeon remains unchallengeable within her party but the party is not yet the country.

[Ozyhibby]

It’s just so dull reading the same stuff week after week from him (and other unionist writers).
There is a court case pending. Let’s wait and see what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

I usually find you get one 'free' read before it locks you out. Here's the full piece if you're interested:

By rights, Nicola Sturgeon should be looking forward to this weekend’s Scottish National Party conference with something close to relish. An unpopular prime minister has been replaced by one who has, in extraordinary scenes, already eclipsed her predecessor’s reputation for chaotic government. The mini-budget delivered by Kwasi Kwarteng contrived to be both a political and an economic disaster. Far from hitting the ground running, Liz Truss’s administration has merely hit the ground hard.

Since Westminster’s difficulties are the SNP’s opportunities, Sturgeon might have expected financial and political chaos in London to be the handmaiden for a breakthrough in the long, attritional struggle for Scottish independence.

As the nationalists gather in Aberdeen, however, there is no immediate sign that even this turmoil has caused Scots to reconsider their constitutional future. There has been a shift in the polls but it is one in which a collapsing Conservative vote in Scotland is accompanied by a surge in support for Labour.

Today’s Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times has SNP support remaining steady on 45 per cent but backing for Labour has increased by seven points since August. At 30 per cent, Labour are within touching distance of the point at which the party believes more than a dozen SNP seats could become realistic targets. The nationalists, top dogs for so long, suddenly risk seeming like wallflowers at someone else’s party.

In truth, Scotland has been a house divided against itself for years. When Sturgeon appeared with the King and Queen to celebrate the award of city status to Dunfermline — burial place of Scottish kings, including Robert the Bruce and birthplace of Charles I — she was booed by a significant portion of the crowds. Although few people would expect a crowd gathered to see the new King to be packed with diehard supporters of the First Minister, the jeering was a reminder that Sturgeon is Scotland’s most polarising political figure. After eight years in office, she enjoys near universal name recognition. Relatively few Scots do not have an opinion on her performance.

That appearance in Fife was followed by a tetchy exchange on Radio 4’s Today programme during which Sturgeon suggested that critics of her government’s gender recognition reforms — such as JK Rowling (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-t-shirt-calls-nicola-sturgeon-destroyer-of-womens-rights-r2nskrcx5) — were not in some sense “real feminists”. The Harry Potter author had posted a picture of herself on Twitter wearing a T-shirt calling Sturgeon a “destroyer of women’s rights”.

Then there was a series of defensive pre-conference media interviews during which she struggled to explain SNP policy on the currency an independent Scotland will use (for a time, Scotland would informally use the pound without the support of the Bank of England, in a manner akin to Montenegro and the euro). And critics have branded SNP claims that UK taxpayers would continue to pay for Scottish pensions after independence as “fantasy economics”.

Sturgeon also lashed out at Truss (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/absurd-radio-silence-from-truss-says-sturgeon-x6c52w6wl) for not yet picking up the telephone to her more than a month after becoming prime minister, while Boris Johnson and Theresa May held talks within days of being appointed.

During the Tory leadership contest, Truss called Sturgeon an “attention seeker” who was best ignored, and Conservative ministers distrust the nationalist leader who has a habit of publicly relaying private conversations. Sturgeon also complained about Truss’s plan to issue up to 100 new North Sea oil and gas exploration licences to boost energy security.

Sturgeon’s strategy for independence has been overtaken by events. Circumstances that applied as recently as June no longer apply. In early summer, the first minister boldly promised a referendum that will, she must continue to insist, be held on October 19 next year. Vanishingly few people believe this is a realistic prospect.

This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the question of the Scottish parliament’s unilateral right to legislate for an independence referendum but few legal experts believe the court will agree with the interpretationof the Scottish government.
Should that prove to be the case, Sturgeon insists that the setback will be only temporary. The next Westminster election will instead become a “de facto referendum” on independence and should the SNP win more than 50 per cent of the vote — which it has never achieved — Sturgeon will consider that a mandate for independence. It is by no means clear how this might be accepted in reality, in law, or by the international community.

The sense that an endgame is approaching persists. Not for independence itself but, rather, for Sturgeon. The first minister is unchallengeable within the SNP but the number of her pro-independence critics is growing. Alex Salmond’s Alba party has attracted some of the nationalists most likely to criticise Sturgeon but even among the faithful, doubts cannot be ignored.

Behind it all lurks this nagging question: “If not now, after all this, then when?” If, some independence supporters note, neither Brexit nor Boris Johnson have persuaded Scots that the risks of independence are outweighed by the risks of Union, why should it be assumed that Liz Truss will finish the job of pushing voters towards independence?

Sturgeon’s strategy has been to talk about new pushes for independence without doing much to drive these forward. New campaigns have been promised and none has led to a meaningful breakthrough. Scotland remains a country cleaved in two on the question of its constitutional future and, after nearly eight years as first minister, Sturgeon’s ability to win fresh converts is open to question.

“There’s an undercurrent among even loyal SNP members that the party is going nowhere,” says Alex Neil, the former nationalist health secretary. He discerns a palpable drop in “enthusiasm”, observing that “the party looks tired and there’s no proper strategy. The only thing that’s keeping things going is Westminster chaos.” Quietly, plenty of SNP parliamentarians agree with Neil’s criticism.

The party’s tightly-controlled conference — there is no debate on independence strategy that branch offices may seek to amend — is no kind of forum for the airing of these concerns but nor may they be suppressed for ever.

Increasingly the suspicion gains ground that Sturgeon is nearing her endgame and the “de facto referendum” gambit may, if it fails, offer her a means by which she can then make a dignified exit from Bute House. In the absence of a compelling strategy, a half-baked plan will have to do.

For years the SNP has argued there is no functional difference between Labour and the Conservatives. Both accept the result of the Brexit referendum; neither believes the time is right for another independence plebiscite. Labour are, in the nationalists’ preferred formulation, little more than “Red Tories”. Sturgeon repeated this view on Friday, arguing that Sir Keir Starmer is “desperately” trying to appeal to voters in England “by being a pale imitation of the Tories as opposed to being a really positive radical alternative”.

Thanks to the SNP’s political supremacy, Sturgeon’s approval ratings remain positive but recent polls show that, for the first time, Starmer has a higher net positive rating in Scotland than Sturgeon. A YouGov survey commissioned by The Times last week found that Starmer had a +13 rating in Scotland — albeit with about a third of voters unable to say whether they think the Labour leader is doing well or not — while Sturgeon’s rating is +11.

The prospect of a Labour Party that can win in England, however, also boosts Labour in Scotland. In 2017, the surge in support for Jeremy Corbyn helped Labour take six seats from the SNP. A Labour Party 20 points ahead in the polls in the UK as a whole is well placed to at least match 2017’s performance in Scotland. The SNP is painfully aware that a Labour majority at Westminster might reset the entirety of British politics.

In such circumstances, the SNP could win the Scottish portion of the election with 45 per cent of the vote but find themselves in an essentially powerless position. Worse still, the nationalists would have lost Sturgeon’s “de facto referendum”.

At that point, even another crushing victory might easily seem like a defeat. This is the logic of the strategy Sturgeon has so far insisted can deliver independence.

In truth, independence is not something in Sturgeon’s gift. Nor can it be delivered on a timetable of her choosing. The people, as she often likes to note, are sovereign. And for the time being the people still say no. Sturgeon remains unchallengeable within her party but the party is not yet the country.

Thanks.

I was right.

[grunt]

Just listening to Nicola Sturgeon at the SNP Conference 2022.
She's barely mentioned independence! :greengrin

[Kato]

Just listening to Nicola Sturgeon at the SNP Conference 2022.
She's barely mentioned independence! :greengrinWhy are people not angry?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Just listening to Nicola Sturgeon at the SNP Conference 2022.
She's barely mentioned independence! :greengrin

It was clear she is looking for a way out now.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Just listening to Nicola Sturgeon at the SNP Conference 2022.
She's barely mentioned independence! :greengrin

More support for Scottish families and their bairns. Lifting people up rather than trampling them down.

We are delighted that
@ScotGovFM
has listened to families and campaigners and announced the doubling of the final bridging payment (for those not yet eligible for the Scottish Child Payment) from £130 - £260
➡️This will help some of the families hardest hit by #CostOfLivingCrisis

[xyz23jc]

Imagine being Alex Massie. Such a seemingly unhappy man.

This might explain... :greengrin


Massie plays for Selkirk Cricket Club and supports Scottish football side Heart of Midlothian (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=928c74ad268056f1JmltdHM9MTY2NTM2MDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0x ODExNWE3NS1mZWQzLTY3NzUtMmNjNS00YWM2ZmYzMzY2MjcmaW 5zaWQ9NTYzMg&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=18115a75-fed3-6775-2cc5-4ac6ff336627&u=a1L3NlYXJjaD9xPUhlYXJ0JTIwb2YlMjBNaWRsb3RoaWFuJT IwRi5DLiUyMHdpa2lwZWRpYSZmb3JtPVdJS0lSRQ&ntb=1).

[ronaldo7]

The court case this morning has covered many aspects of law which at times is difficult to follow but the Lord Advocate has taken us through the arguments very carefully. We've heard about the Welsh devolved settlement, the Northern Irish settlement and the Scotland act. We've also covered case law in many areas including hearing about Imperial tobacco, the Welsh NHS, and AXA general insurance v Lord Advocate, which all support the Scottish Government case.

Very interesting indeed if you have the time. :greengrin

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Start back at 2pm.

[Stairway 2 7]

Some months until ruling unfortunately

https://news.stv.tv/politics/watch-scotlands-lord-advocate-dorothy-bain-kc-argue-for-second-independence-referendum-at-supreme-court?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1665484948-1

A referendum like the one being proposed by the Scottish Government would be “entirely advisory” with no legal effect, the Lord Advocate has told the Supreme Court
Lord Reed, the President of the Supreme Court, earlier told those following the hearing that it was likely to be “some months” before justices gave their ruling

[ronaldo7]

Some months until ruling unfortunately

https://news.stv.tv/politics/watch-scotlands-lord-advocate-dorothy-bain-kc-argue-for-second-independence-referendum-at-supreme-court?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1665484948-1

A referendum like the one being proposed by the Scottish Government would be “entirely advisory” with no legal effect, the Lord Advocate has told the Supreme Court
Lord Reed, the President of the Supreme Court, earlier told those following the hearing that it was likely to be “some months” before justices gave their ruling

They all are, aren't they?

The timescale for the ruling was always going to be around 6-8 weeks.

[Stairway 2 7]

They all are, aren't they?

The timescale for the ruling was always going to be around 6-8 weeks.

Yeah I don't think that's a surprise that it will be advisory

[degenerated]

This might explain... :greengrin


Massie plays for Selkirk Cricket Club and supports Scottish football side Heart of Midlothian (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=928c74ad268056f1JmltdHM9MTY2NTM2MDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0x ODExNWE3NS1mZWQzLTY3NzUtMmNjNS00YWM2ZmYzMzY2MjcmaW 5zaWQ9NTYzMg&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=18115a75-fed3-6775-2cc5-4ac6ff336627&u=a1L3NlYXJjaD9xPUhlYXJ0JTIwb2YlMjBNaWRsb3RoaWFuJT IwRi5DLiUyMHdpa2lwZWRpYSZmb3JtPVdJS0lSRQ&ntb=1).It's a family trait. His old man is a bitter Thatcherite and anti devolutionist who used to write hyperbolic nonsense in the likes of the mail. 26232

[James310]

From the Herald today.

"REALISTICALLY, there are only three options available to the UK Supreme Court, which this week is hearing argument in the case brought to it by the Scottish Government, that Holyrood ought to be permitted to hold a repeat referendum on independence even without Westminster’s consent.
None of the options favours the nationalists. Whatever you read about the law and politics of Indyref2 this week, know this: it is not going to happen. Not anytime soon. And certainly not on the fanciful timetable Nicola Sturgeon says she prefers.
The first option available to the court is they rule this week’s case out as being premature. Rather ingeniously, the Scottish Government’s Lord Advocate has bypassed and short-circuited the normal legal procedures used for testing whether Holyrood’s enactments are within its law-making competence. Those processes can be triggered only after the Scottish Parliament has debated and passed a bill into law.
As things stand, no such bill has even been introduced into Holyrood, never mind debated, amended, or passed. And yet here we are in court already. It is open to the justices to rule that the case should have come nowhere near the Supreme Court until after Holyrood has enacted a bill – then, and only then, could any binding ruling be made as to that bill’s legality. That’s option 1.
Option 2 is for the court to accept that it should rule on the substance, despite the unusual route the case has taken to get into court. The substance of the matter is as follows: Holyrood will have the lawful authority to enact a law authorising a second independence referendum without Westminster’s consent only if that law does not “relate to” reserved matters. The Union of Scotland and England is a reserved matter. Clearly, independence itself relates to the Union (it would relate to the Union by terminating it). But does a bill which authorises not independence itself but a referendum about independence relate to the reserved matter of the Union?
The legal tests the court must deploy to answer this question are set out in the Scotland Act – whether a measure relates to reserved matters depends on its purpose, having regard to its effect in all the circumstances. Thus, there are two relevant tests –purpose and effect. Option 2 is for the justices to rule as the UK Government would like them to rule: namely, that the purpose of an independence referendum is to prosecute the case for independence (which relates to the reserved matter of the Union) and that the effect of an independence referendum is to determine whether the Union continues or not.
Thus, both the purpose and the effect of an independence referendum relate to a matter – the Union – which the Scotland Act reserves to Westminster. And, as such, Holyrood has no legislative competence to enact an Independence Referendum Bill into law without Westminster’s consent. That’s option 2.
Option 3 is more subtle. But, even if this is the option which the justices in the end take, the nationalists still lose. Option 3 goes back to those key tests of purpose and effect and probes them more deeply. In her written case to the court, the Lord Advocate has accepted that the purpose of any independence referendum cannot be to secure independence. Independence itself would require its own legislation – lots of it, in fact – in both Holyrood and Westminster.
In this respect, independence is just like Brexit. Brexit was not secured by the 2016 referendum. It was secured, only years later, by legislation enacted by Parliament and by agreement with the European Union, agreement which took years of wrangling to deliver.
Thus, concedes the Lord Advocate, the purpose of an independence referendum bill is simply to test the opinion of the people of Scotland – and this purpose (testing public opinion) is not reserved to Westminster. Likewise, she concedes that the effect even of a Yes vote cannot of itself amount to anything in law. Again, just as with Brexit, the mere expression of public opinion in favour of leaving changes nothing.
Option 3, then, is that the Scottish Parliament can hold Indyref2 without Westminster’s consent, but only on the understanding that the purpose of the referendum is simply to ask voters to express a preference (as they would, for example, in an opinion poll) and that the effect of so doing is, precisely, “nil” (to use the Lord Advocate’s memorable word).
Were such a referendum to take place, it would be so hollowed out of meaning it would amount to nothing more than an empty stunt. Those opposed to it would simply ignore it, refusing to have anything to do with it. There would be no No campaign. The Unionist parties (and their supporters) would boycott the whole thing, and the SNP would look ridiculous.
And that’s it. Those really are the only three options the Supreme Court has in deciding this case. I have no more idea than anyone else which option – or which combination of options – the justices will choose. But, whatever happens, the nationalists lose.
Which leaves only one question, really: given that the nationalists must know all of this, why have they brought the case to the Supreme Court in the first place? They cannot win from here, so why do it? Perhaps it is all just an act, designed to buy time. Nicola Sturgeon has become rather experienced at pulling the wool over her supporters’ eyes, making them believe that a referendum is just around the corner when she knows full well it is not.
One day, perhaps they will realise that – for years, now – they have been taken for a ride."

[Ozyhibby]

From the Herald today.

"REALISTICALLY, there are only three options available to the UK Supreme Court, which this week is hearing argument in the case brought to it by the Scottish Government, that Holyrood ought to be permitted to hold a repeat referendum on independence even without Westminster’s consent.
None of the options favours the nationalists. Whatever you read about the law and politics of Indyref2 this week, know this: it is not going to happen. Not anytime soon. And certainly not on the fanciful timetable Nicola Sturgeon says she prefers.
The first option available to the court is they rule this week’s case out as being premature. Rather ingeniously, the Scottish Government’s Lord Advocate has bypassed and short-circuited the normal legal procedures used for testing whether Holyrood’s enactments are within its law-making competence. Those processes can be triggered only after the Scottish Parliament has debated and passed a bill into law.
As things stand, no such bill has even been introduced into Holyrood, never mind debated, amended, or passed. And yet here we are in court already. It is open to the justices to rule that the case should have come nowhere near the Supreme Court until after Holyrood has enacted a bill – then, and only then, could any binding ruling be made as to that bill’s legality. That’s option 1.
Option 2 is for the court to accept that it should rule on the substance, despite the unusual route the case has taken to get into court. The substance of the matter is as follows: Holyrood will have the lawful authority to enact a law authorising a second independence referendum without Westminster’s consent only if that law does not “relate to” reserved matters. The Union of Scotland and England is a reserved matter. Clearly, independence itself relates to the Union (it would relate to the Union by terminating it). But does a bill which authorises not independence itself but a referendum about independence relate to the reserved matter of the Union?
The legal tests the court must deploy to answer this question are set out in the Scotland Act – whether a measure relates to reserved matters depends on its purpose, having regard to its effect in all the circumstances. Thus, there are two relevant tests –purpose and effect. Option 2 is for the justices to rule as the UK Government would like them to rule: namely, that the purpose of an independence referendum is to prosecute the case for independence (which relates to the reserved matter of the Union) and that the effect of an independence referendum is to determine whether the Union continues or not.
Thus, both the purpose and the effect of an independence referendum relate to a matter – the Union – which the Scotland Act reserves to Westminster. And, as such, Holyrood has no legislative competence to enact an Independence Referendum Bill into law without Westminster’s consent. That’s option 2.
Option 3 is more subtle. But, even if this is the option which the justices in the end take, the nationalists still lose. Option 3 goes back to those key tests of purpose and effect and probes them more deeply. In her written case to the court, the Lord Advocate has accepted that the purpose of any independence referendum cannot be to secure independence. Independence itself would require its own legislation – lots of it, in fact – in both Holyrood and Westminster.
In this respect, independence is just like Brexit. Brexit was not secured by the 2016 referendum. It was secured, only years later, by legislation enacted by Parliament and by agreement with the European Union, agreement which took years of wrangling to deliver.
Thus, concedes the Lord Advocate, the purpose of an independence referendum bill is simply to test the opinion of the people of Scotland – and this purpose (testing public opinion) is not reserved to Westminster. Likewise, she concedes that the effect even of a Yes vote cannot of itself amount to anything in law. Again, just as with Brexit, the mere expression of public opinion in favour of leaving changes nothing.
Option 3, then, is that the Scottish Parliament can hold Indyref2 without Westminster’s consent, but only on the understanding that the purpose of the referendum is simply to ask voters to express a preference (as they would, for example, in an opinion poll) and that the effect of so doing is, precisely, “nil” (to use the Lord Advocate’s memorable word).
Were such a referendum to take place, it would be so hollowed out of meaning it would amount to nothing more than an empty stunt. Those opposed to it would simply ignore it, refusing to have anything to do with it. There would be no No campaign. The Unionist parties (and their supporters) would boycott the whole thing, and the SNP would look ridiculous.
And that’s it. Those really are the only three options the Supreme Court has in deciding this case. I have no more idea than anyone else which option – or which combination of options – the justices will choose. But, whatever happens, the nationalists lose.
Which leaves only one question, really: given that the nationalists must know all of this, why have they brought the case to the Supreme Court in the first place? They cannot win from here, so why do it? Perhaps it is all just an act, designed to buy time. Nicola Sturgeon has become rather experienced at pulling the wool over her supporters’ eyes, making them believe that a referendum is just around the corner when she knows full well it is not.
One day, perhaps they will realise that – for years, now – they have been taken for a ride."

[emoji23][emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

[emoji23][emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah another emoji response, that's certainly the reply I was expecting.

Which part do you think is laughable? Which part do you think is wrong or not as you expect it to be?

[heretoday]

Scottish independence would be a complete disaster. Forget.

Vote Labour.

[Ozyhibby]

Ah another emoji response, that's certainly the reply I was expecting.

Which part do you think is laughable? Which part do you think is wrong or not as you expect it to be?

Can you be absolutely certain that every unionist party will boycott it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

From the Herald today.

"REALISTICALLY, there are only three options available to the UK Supreme Court, which this week is hearing argument in the case brought to it by the Scottish Government, that Holyrood ought to be permitted to hold a repeat referendum on independence even without Westminster’s consent.
None of the options favours the nationalists. Whatever you read about the law and politics of Indyref2 this week, know this: it is not going to happen. Not anytime soon. And certainly not on the fanciful timetable Nicola Sturgeon says she prefers.
The first option available to the court is they rule this week’s case out as being premature. Rather ingeniously, the Scottish Government’s Lord Advocate has bypassed and short-circuited the normal legal procedures used for testing whether Holyrood’s enactments are within its law-making competence. Those processes can be triggered only after the Scottish Parliament has debated and passed a bill into law.
As things stand, no such bill has even been introduced into Holyrood, never mind debated, amended, or passed. And yet here we are in court already. It is open to the justices to rule that the case should have come nowhere near the Supreme Court until after Holyrood has enacted a bill – then, and only then, could any binding ruling be made as to that bill’s legality. That’s option 1.
Option 2 is for the court to accept that it should rule on the substance, despite the unusual route the case has taken to get into court. The substance of the matter is as follows: Holyrood will have the lawful authority to enact a law authorising a second independence referendum without Westminster’s consent only if that law does not “relate to” reserved matters. The Union of Scotland and England is a reserved matter. Clearly, independence itself relates to the Union (it would relate to the Union by terminating it). But does a bill which authorises not independence itself but a referendum about independence relate to the reserved matter of the Union?
The legal tests the court must deploy to answer this question are set out in the Scotland Act – whether a measure relates to reserved matters depends on its purpose, having regard to its effect in all the circumstances. Thus, there are two relevant tests –purpose and effect. Option 2 is for the justices to rule as the UK Government would like them to rule: namely, that the purpose of an independence referendum is to prosecute the case for independence (which relates to the reserved matter of the Union) and that the effect of an independence referendum is to determine whether the Union continues or not.
Thus, both the purpose and the effect of an independence referendum relate to a matter – the Union – which the Scotland Act reserves to Westminster. And, as such, Holyrood has no legislative competence to enact an Independence Referendum Bill into law without Westminster’s consent. That’s option 2.
Option 3 is more subtle. But, even if this is the option which the justices in the end take, the nationalists still lose. Option 3 goes back to those key tests of purpose and effect and probes them more deeply. In her written case to the court, the Lord Advocate has accepted that the purpose of any independence referendum cannot be to secure independence. Independence itself would require its own legislation – lots of it, in fact – in both Holyrood and Westminster.
In this respect, independence is just like Brexit. Brexit was not secured by the 2016 referendum. It was secured, only years later, by legislation enacted by Parliament and by agreement with the European Union, agreement which took years of wrangling to deliver.
Thus, concedes the Lord Advocate, the purpose of an independence referendum bill is simply to test the opinion of the people of Scotland – and this purpose (testing public opinion) is not reserved to Westminster. Likewise, she concedes that the effect even of a Yes vote cannot of itself amount to anything in law. Again, just as with Brexit, the mere expression of public opinion in favour of leaving changes nothing.
Option 3, then, is that the Scottish Parliament can hold Indyref2 without Westminster’s consent, but only on the understanding that the purpose of the referendum is simply to ask voters to express a preference (as they would, for example, in an opinion poll) and that the effect of so doing is, precisely, “nil” (to use the Lord Advocate’s memorable word).
Were such a referendum to take place, it would be so hollowed out of meaning it would amount to nothing more than an empty stunt. Those opposed to it would simply ignore it, refusing to have anything to do with it. There would be no No campaign. The Unionist parties (and their supporters) would boycott the whole thing, and the SNP would look ridiculous.
And that’s it. Those really are the only three options the Supreme Court has in deciding this case. I have no more idea than anyone else which option – or which combination of options – the justices will choose. But, whatever happens, the nationalists lose.
Which leaves only one question, really: given that the nationalists must know all of this, why have they brought the case to the Supreme Court in the first place? They cannot win from here, so why do it? Perhaps it is all just an act, designed to buy time. Nicola Sturgeon has become rather experienced at pulling the wool over her supporters’ eyes, making them believe that a referendum is just around the corner when she knows full well it is not.
One day, perhaps they will realise that – for years, now – they have been taken for a ride."

Salmond's of a similar view:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23040740.alex-salmond-scottish-government-wrong-ask-supreme-court-rule-indyref2/

[James310]

Can you be absolutely certain that every unionist party will boycott it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you believe the Tory's and Labour will do EXACTLY as the SNP want them to do? Why would they do the exact thing Nicola Sturgeon wants them to do, of course they will ignore it. Why should the Tory's who Nicola Sturgeon said she detests give her on a plate what she wants? Time for her to own what she has instigated. They will ignore it because it's meaningless, and that's the SNP saying that not the unionist parties.

You want us to take part in a meaningless referendum that has no effect at all? Why?

What's the point of a meaningless poll, and if it's not meaningless then its explicitly not what the SNP are arguing in court it is.

Not often Nicola Sturgeon gets it so wrong, but this and the de facto referendum are errors. Big errors. I know not many will admit it though.

[James310]

Salmond's of a similar view:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23040740.alex-salmond-scottish-government-wrong-ask-supreme-court-rule-indyref2/

They actually miss him in terms of strategy. John Nicholson MP said that "Nicola Sturgeon doesn't frighten the horses in Westminster like Alex Salmond did" or words to that effect. He was meaning it as a compliment to Nicola Sturgeon and a slight on Alex Salmond, but who are you wanting facing off to Westminster, someone they are scared off or someone who they feel poses little threat.

[Ozyhibby]

So you believe the Tory's and Labour will do EXACTLY as the SNP want them to do? Why would they do the exact thing Nicola Sturgeon wants them to do, of course they will ignore it. Why should the Tory's who Nicola Sturgeon said she detests give her on a plate what she wants? Time for her to own what she has instigated. They will ignore it because it's meaningless, and that's the SNP saying that not the unionist parties.

You want us to take part in a meaningless referendum that has no effect at all? Why?

What's the point of a meaningless poll, and if it's not meaningless then its explicitly not what the SNP are arguing in court it is.

Not often Nicola Sturgeon gets it wrong, but this and the de facto referendum are errors. Big errors. I know not many will admit it though.

Everyday you are on here telling us what NS is getting wrong, now you are saying it’s not often she gets it wrong. Hilarious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Everyday you are on here telling us what NS is getting wrong, now you are saying it’s not often she gets it wrong. Hilarious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just a deflection from the points, everything seems hilarious or laughing emoji to you rather than tackling the points raised, if you are comfortable in the direction the strategy for Indy is going then crack on. In a few years you might wonder why it's going nowhere.

Why do you think the Tory's or Labour will take part in a meaningless referendum that has no effect to anything?

[Kato]

So you believe the Tory's and Labour will do EXACTLY as the SNP want them to do? Why would they do the exact thing Nicola Sturgeon wants them to do, of course they will ignore it. Why should the Tory's who Nicola Sturgeon said she detests give her on a plate what she wants? Time for her to own what she has instigated. They will ignore it because it's meaningless, and that's the SNP saying that not the unionist parties.

You want us to take part in a meaningless referendum that has no effect at all? Why?

What's the point of a meaningless poll, and if it's not meaningless then its explicitly not what the SNP are arguing in court it is.

Not often Nicola Sturgeon gets it so wrong, but this and the de facto referendum are errors. Big errors. I know not many will admit it though.Any more meaninglesses left?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Scottish independence would be a complete disaster. Forget.

Vote Labour.

Way to go! Believe in your country!

"Vote Labour". LOLZ

[James310]

Any more meaninglesses left?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

It's an important word, it's the whole basis of the SNPs legal argument for having a referendum.

[Kato]

It's an important word, it's the whole basis of the SNPs legal argument for having a referendum.

I thought that word was "advisory"?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

From the Herald today.

"REALISTICALLY, there are only three options available to the UK Supreme Court, which this week is hearing argument in the case brought to it by the Scottish Government, that Holyrood ought to be permitted to hold a repeat referendum on independence even without Westminster’s consent.
None of the options favours the nationalists. Whatever you read about the law and politics of Indyref2 this week, know this: it is not going to happen. Not anytime soon. And certainly not on the fanciful timetable Nicola Sturgeon says she prefers.
The first option available to the court is they rule this week’s case out as being premature. Rather ingeniously, the Scottish Government’s Lord Advocate has bypassed and short-circuited the normal legal procedures used for testing whether Holyrood’s enactments are within its law-making competence. Those processes can be triggered only after the Scottish Parliament has debated and passed a bill into law.
As things stand, no such bill has even been introduced into Holyrood, never mind debated, amended, or passed. And yet here we are in court already. It is open to the justices to rule that the case should have come nowhere near the Supreme Court until after Holyrood has enacted a bill – then, and only then, could any binding ruling be made as to that bill’s legality. That’s option 1.
Option 2 is for the court to accept that it should rule on the substance, despite the unusual route the case has taken to get into court. The substance of the matter is as follows: Holyrood will have the lawful authority to enact a law authorising a second independence referendum without Westminster’s consent only if that law does not “relate to” reserved matters. The Union of Scotland and England is a reserved matter. Clearly, independence itself relates to the Union (it would relate to the Union by terminating it). But does a bill which authorises not independence itself but a referendum about independence relate to the reserved matter of the Union?
The legal tests the court must deploy to answer this question are set out in the Scotland Act – whether a measure relates to reserved matters depends on its purpose, having regard to its effect in all the circumstances. Thus, there are two relevant tests –purpose and effect. Option 2 is for the justices to rule as the UK Government would like them to rule: namely, that the purpose of an independence referendum is to prosecute the case for independence (which relates to the reserved matter of the Union) and that the effect of an independence referendum is to determine whether the Union continues or not.
Thus, both the purpose and the effect of an independence referendum relate to a matter – the Union – which the Scotland Act reserves to Westminster. And, as such, Holyrood has no legislative competence to enact an Independence Referendum Bill into law without Westminster’s consent. That’s option 2.
Option 3 is more subtle. But, even if this is the option which the justices in the end take, the nationalists still lose. Option 3 goes back to those key tests of purpose and effect and probes them more deeply. In her written case to the court, the Lord Advocate has accepted that the purpose of any independence referendum cannot be to secure independence. Independence itself would require its own legislation – lots of it, in fact – in both Holyrood and Westminster.
In this respect, independence is just like Brexit. Brexit was not secured by the 2016 referendum. It was secured, only years later, by legislation enacted by Parliament and by agreement with the European Union, agreement which took years of wrangling to deliver.
Thus, concedes the Lord Advocate, the purpose of an independence referendum bill is simply to test the opinion of the people of Scotland – and this purpose (testing public opinion) is not reserved to Westminster. Likewise, she concedes that the effect even of a Yes vote cannot of itself amount to anything in law. Again, just as with Brexit, the mere expression of public opinion in favour of leaving changes nothing.
Option 3, then, is that the Scottish Parliament can hold Indyref2 without Westminster’s consent, but only on the understanding that the purpose of the referendum is simply to ask voters to express a preference (as they would, for example, in an opinion poll) and that the effect of so doing is, precisely, “nil” (to use the Lord Advocate’s memorable word).
Were such a referendum to take place, it would be so hollowed out of meaning it would amount to nothing more than an empty stunt. Those opposed to it would simply ignore it, refusing to have anything to do with it. There would be no No campaign. The Unionist parties (and their supporters) would boycott the whole thing, and the SNP would look ridiculous.
And that’s it. Those really are the only three options the Supreme Court has in deciding this case. I have no more idea than anyone else which option – or which combination of options – the justices will choose. But, whatever happens, the nationalists lose.
Which leaves only one question, really: given that the nationalists must know all of this, why have they brought the case to the Supreme Court in the first place? They cannot win from here, so why do it? Perhaps it is all just an act, designed to buy time. Nicola Sturgeon has become rather experienced at pulling the wool over her supporters’ eyes, making them believe that a referendum is just around the corner when she knows full well it is not.
One day, perhaps they will realise that – for years, now – they have been taken for a ride."

It's only half time and someone's mind has been made up.

Shock horror.

Did you watch it yesterday?

[grunt]

They actually miss him in terms of strategy. John Nicholson MP said that "Nicola Sturgeon doesn't frighten the horses in Westminster like Alex Salmond did" or words to that effect. He was meaning it as a compliment to Nicola Sturgeon and a slight on Alex Salmond, but who are you wanting facing off to Westminster, someone they are scared off or someone who they feel poses little threat.

Classic post. "Poses little threat". That's why they're spending all their effort trying to knock her down. Sturgeon was first item on the agenda of Truss cabinet meeting this week. Lolz.

[Ozyhibby]

If all the outcomes are terrible for the SNP, why are the UK govt paying a very expensive lawyer to fight this case today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

It's only half time and someone's mind has been made up.

Shock horror.

Did you watch it yesterday?

I watched some and at time the Lord Advocate looked very uncomfortable, as if she was wondering why am I here. We already know her position in that she doesn't have confidence in any Bill.

No minds are made up, that's the 3 possible outcomes. Every outcomes is not good news for the Nationalists so begs the question why do it?

(I can tell you why, so it looks like 'something' is being done even although it is lose/lose)

[James310]

If all the outcomes are terrible for the SNP, why are the UK govt paying a very expensive lawyer to fight this case today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You expect them to not turn up? That would be odd.

The best outcome for the SNP is they can run the meaningless poll, they aren't even asking for a poll that means something so they won't get that. So what's the best outcome for the SNP in your mind?

[James310]

Classic post. "Poses little threat". That's why they're spending all their effort trying to knock her down. Sturgeon was first item on the agenda of Truss cabinet meeting this week. Lolz.

Intrigued as to how you know what's on the cabinet agenda? Is it public record?

[James310]

I thought that word was "advisory"?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

An advisory referendum is meaningless unless there is legislation that enacts the decision after it.

The Brexit referendum itself was advisory but everyone knew after the result the legislative process would begin if the result was leave. The SNP are explicitly arguing this referendum will have no effect on the Union and no legislation will be proposed on the back of it, so the opposite of Brexit. So meaningless is a fair reflection.

[ronaldo7]

I watched some and at time the Lord Advocate looked very uncomfortable, as if she was wondering why am I here. We already know her position in that she doesn't have confidence in any Bill.

No minds are made up, that's the 3 possible outcomes. Every outcomes is not good news for the Nationalists so begs the question why do it?

(I can tell you why, so it looks like 'something' is being done even although it is lose/lose)

I thought the Lord advocate was very assured and across her brief yesterday. What does an uncomfortable woman look like to you?

It seemed to me that the UK Gov were trying to bring the case down with them covering procedure of the Scottish Parliament, and the reference being premature.

The Lord advocate was arguing to find out if the Scottish Parliament has the competence to run a referendum, any referendum, on any subject. She covered that quite well imo.

The piece from the Herald is coming at this from a unionist perspective, and that's fine, but let's at least wait on the outcome before throwing out meaningless sound bites about pretendy refs. If the Supreme Court side with the Lord advocate, the referendum will then be legal, and I'd be happy for you and the rest of the Tories to stand aside. That's always a choice in a vote.

[ronaldo7]

An advisory referendum is meaningless unless there is legislation that enacts the decision after it.

The Brexit referendum itself was advisory but everyone knew after the result the legislative process would begin if the result was leave. The SNP are explicitly arguing this referendum will have no effect on the Union and no legislation will be proposed on the back of it, so the opposite of Brexit. So meaningless is a fair reflection.

She didn't actually say that. She said the referendum has no effect on the union, ( the actual bill), not that it will have no effect on the union. Theirs a difference.

[Kato]

An advisory referendum is meaningless unless there is legislation that enacts the decision after it.

The Brexit referendum itself was advisory but everyone knew after the result the legislative process would begin if the result was leave. The SNP are explicitly arguing this referendum will have no effect on the Union and no legislation will be proposed on the back of it, so the opposite of Brexit. So meaningless is a fair reflection.

That is your version of fair reflection.





Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

An advisory referendum is meaningless unless there is legislation that enacts the decision after it.

The Brexit referendum itself was advisory but everyone knew after the result the legislative process would begin if the result was leave. The SNP are explicitly arguing this referendum will have no effect on the Union and no legislation will be proposed on the back of it, so the opposite of Brexit. So meaningless is a fair reflection.

Haha. Really, step away from the screen and read your post over again. Advisory, but not like that advisory!

[James310]

I thought the Lord advocate was very assured and across her brief yesterday. What does an uncomfortable woman look like to you?

It seemed to me that the UK Gov were trying to bring the case down with them covering procedure of the Scottish Parliament, and the reference being premature.

The Lord advocate was arguing to find out if the Scottish Parliament has the competence to run a referendum, any referendum, on any subject. She covered that quite well imo.

The piece from the Herald is coming at this from a unionist perspective, and that's fine, but let's at least wait on the outcome before throwing out meaningless sound bites about pretendy refs. If the Supreme Court side with the Lord advocate, the referendum will then be legal, and I'd be happy for you and the rest of the Tories to stand aside. That's always a choice in a vote.

Have you been on a course or something? Such a polite response and no digs.

At times she seemed to stumble through things and did not come across as someone with confidence and conviction. But I guess we see what we want at these things.

Yes they could rule it's legal but as the article states it would be a legal opinion poll basically, and I hate to use the word again but meaningless. If it is boycotted which I think it's a certainty it is, then Yes winning 99% on a turnout of 40% doesn't advance the Indy cause, if anything it makes it look a bit ridiculous especially if any kind of victory is claimed. Although how a victory is claimed by the SNP when they say it has zero effect on the Union I don't know.

[grunt]

I thought the Lord advocate was very assured and across her brief yesterday. What does an uncomfortable woman look like to you?

Quote from legal blogger David Allen Green, "The Scottish government is making a clever and arguable case to the Supreme Court

Nobody knows how the court will decide, but it is a case being as well made as it can be".

[James310]

Haha. Really, step away from the screen and read your post over again. Advisory, but not like that advisory!

Ha ha?

I am not sure what you mean here.

An advisory referendum with no legislation on the back of it is meaningless. It's an opinion poll.

[ronaldo7]

Have you been on a course or something? Such a polite response and no digs.

At times she seemed to stumble through things and did not come across as someone with confidence and conviction. But I guess we see what we want at these things.

Yes they could rule it's legal but as the article states it would be a legal opinion poll basically, and I hate to use the word again but meaningless. If it is boycotted which I think it's a certainty it is, then Yes winning 99% on a turnout of 40% doesn't advance the Indy cause, if anything it makes it look a bit ridiculous especially if any kind of victory is claimed. Although how a victory is claimed by the SNP when they say it has zero effect on the Union I don't know.

If you'd watched it, you'd have seen her make very clear that the bill has no effect on the union. That's the first hurdle.

The result that nobody knows might have.

No need for the personal digs.

[Ozyhibby]

An advisory referendum is meaningless unless there is legislation that enacts the decision after it.

The Brexit referendum itself was advisory but everyone knew after the result the legislative process would begin if the result was leave. The SNP are explicitly arguing this referendum will have no effect on the Union and no legislation will be proposed on the back of it, so the opposite of Brexit. So meaningless is a fair reflection.

That’s not true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Ha ha?

I am not sure what you mean here.

An advisory referendum with no legislation on the back of it is meaningless. It's an opinion poll.

I guess the Scottish Government should have consulted you before spending its £20 million putting its Supreme Court case together.

Haha means I'm laughing at your post. HTH.

[James310]

I guess the Scottish Government should have consulted you before spending its £20 million putting its Supreme Court case together.

Haha means I'm laughing at your post. HTH.

Ok. 👍

[grunt]

https://twitter.com/phantompower14/status/1580116406385143809?s=61&t=kkPu_F0T1QL4d-H4zvvv1A

[archie]

https://twitter.com/phantompower14/status/1580116406385143809?s=61&t=kkPu_F0T1QL4d-H4zvvv1AWhat are you wanting us to look at here? Is it the Salmond criticism of the Scottish Government?

[grunt]

What are you wanting us to look at here? Is it the Salmond criticism of the Scottish Government?

Sorry. Posting using Tapatalk I can see the content.

It's an interview with a pollster explaining that independence is inevitable.

[ronaldo7]

https://twitter.com/phantompower14/status/1580116406385143809?s=61&t=kkPu_F0T1QL4d-H4zvvv1A

:agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

If all the outcomes are terrible for the SNP, why are the UK govt paying a very expensive lawyer to fight this case today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's interesting that the UKG's primary position is that the court shouldn't rule at all rather than rule that Westminster is the only body that has a say on whether there is a ref2. They obviously don't want it to be made obvious to the Scottish electorate that it has no legal route to a referendum.

It fits the general pattern of Unionism post-2014: stall, stall, stall and hope something turns up. To date, there has been absolutely nothing to engage young Scots in the project of Britishness.

[Moulin Yarns]

If all the outcomes are terrible for the SNP, why are the UK govt paying a very expensive lawyer to fight this case today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The second question is what are they afraid of? If they truly believe that Scotland IS better off as part of the UK why not make the case and put it to the people in an advisory referendum?

[archie]

It's interesting that the UKG's primary position is that the court shouldn't rule at all rather than rule that Westminster is the only body that has a say on whether there is a ref2. They obviously don't want it to be made obvious to the Scottish electorate that it has no legal route to a referendum.

It fits the general pattern of Unionism post-2014: stall, stall, stall and hope something turns up. To date, there has been absolutely nothing to engage young Scots in the project of Britishness.This case refers with similar arguments. https://www.judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/judgments/2021/02/05/martin-keatings

[archie]

The second question is what are they afraid of? If they truly believe that Scotland IS better off as part of the UK why not make the case and put it to the people in an advisory referendum?I know why you argue this. Would you do that for other issues, such as capital punishment, abortion, tax rises etc. etc. If not why not?

[Kato]

I know why you argue this. Would you do that for other issues, such as capital punishment, abortion, tax rises etc. etc. If not why not?What are the polls like for those issues. They seem quite like fringe views. Would there be any point in having referendums for them?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The unionist lawyer seems to be arguing that a referendum wouldn’t be meaningless?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

What are the polls like for those issues. They seem quite like fringe views. Would there be any point in having referendums for them?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalkhttps://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/2021-gallup-poll-public-support-for-capital-punishment-remains-at-half-century-low Not that fringe a view at all. As someone who is opposed to capital punishment the question is what am I afraid of? If I truly believe that capital punishment is wrong then why not make the case and put it to the people in an advisory referendum?

[archie]

The unionist lawyer seems to be arguing that a referendum wouldn’t be meaningless?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI think you mean the UK Government lawyer. I'm sure Dorothy Bain wouldn't appreciate being labled 'the nationalist lawyer'.

[James310]

The unionist lawyer seems to be arguing that a referendum wouldn’t be meaningless?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice try.

This sums up his position well.

https://twitter.com/markthehibby/status/1580165380097527808?t=C7fQOo-zBomyaKSyF2j_WQ&s=19

[Ozyhibby]

Nice try.

This sums up his position well.

https://twitter.com/markthehibby/status/1580165380097527808?t=C7fQOo-zBomyaKSyF2j_WQ&s=19

Doesn’t negate what I said though does it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/2021-gallup-poll-public-support-for-capital-punishment-remains-at-half-century-low Not that fringe a view at all. As someone who is opposed to capital punishment the question is what am I afraid of? If I truly believe that capital punishment is wrong then why not make the case and put it to the people in an advisory referendum?What are they in the UK? I don't see any relevance to showing American numbers (a country that actually has the death penalty)

Anyway, if we brought in a government in our country that said they would have a referendum on that - why wouldn't we have that referendum?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

That's just a deflection from the points, everything seems hilarious or laughing emoji to you rather than tackling the points raised, if you are comfortable in the direction the strategy for Indy is going then crack on. In a few years you might wonder why it's going nowhere.

Why do you think the Tory's or Labour will take part in a meaningless referendum that has no effect to anything?


Nice try.

This sums up his position well.

https://twitter.com/markthehibby/status/1580165380097527808?t=C7fQOo-zBomyaKSyF2j_WQ&s=19

Sir James Eadie seems to be disagreeing with you. You think it's meaningless, where he thinks it's important, and goes to the whole heart of the Union, and the constitution.

[ronaldo7]

What are they in the UK? I don't see any relevance to showing American numbers (a country that actually has the death penalty)

Anyway, if we brought in a government in our country that said they would have a referendum on that - why wouldn't we have that referendum?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

What, like a manifesto?

What a novel idea. Surely people wouldn't decry that in a modern democracy.

[archie]

What, like a manifesto?

What a novel idea. Surely people wouldn't decry that in a modern democracy.The point is that referenda on binary issues tend to be convulsive and disruptive. That's not to say we shouldn't have them, but we should recognise them for their impact. They are not no consequence events. There's a reason we don't get a brain scan every time we get a headache or a colonoscopy ever time there's a dose of the runs!

[ronaldo7]

The point is that referenda on binary issues tend to be convulsive and disruptive. That's not to say we shouldn't have them, but we should recognise them for their impact. They are not no consequence events. There's a reason we don't get a brain scan every time we get a headache or a colonoscopy ever time there's a dose of the runs!

That's why we don't have them very often, as per the Northern Ireland good friday agreement. 7 years is long enough. :wink: They can't be disruptive if we can't have them though.

[James310]

Sir James Eadie seems to be disagreeing with you. You think it's meaningless, where he thinks it's important, and goes to the whole heart of the Union, and the constitution.

It's the SNP that are claiming it's meaningless, not sure how many times I need to repeat this. He is highlighting the ridiculous of this, the SNP whose aim is independence and want to introduce legislation in the Scottish Parliament to break up the UK in the same breath assert any bill doesn't relate to the Union or the UK and will have "nil" effect.

It's like saying does anyone believe if the advisory referendum goes ahead and everyone takes part and Yes win 55/45 the SNP will when the result is announced go 'yes well let's just ignore that as we said it would have no effect so let's move on and forget it even happened" that's clearly ridiculous and that's what he is pointing out. He is pointing out the absurdness of the argument and that's why he refers to it as "strange".

[archie]

That's why we don't have them very often, as per the Northern Ireland good friday agreement. 7 years is long enough. :wink: They can't be disruptive if we can't have them though.
I'm sure you are sensitive to the issues in Northern Ireland and aren't seeing a parallel with Scotland?

[Ozyhibby]

The point is that referenda on binary issues tend to be convulsive and disruptive. That's not to say we shouldn't have them, but we should recognise them for their impact. They are not no consequence events. There's a reason we don't get a brain scan every time we get a headache or a colonoscopy ever time there's a dose of the runs!

James thinks they are meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The UK lawyer is very good at talking down to the judges.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

I'm sure you are sensitive to the issues in Northern Ireland and aren't seeing a parallel with Scotland?

Of course, I do. However, I'm talking about timescale. Surely the Brits in Ireland would be up in arms if they were having border polls every 7 years.

[James310]

James thinks they are meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without legislation to back them up and enact the result what are they?

Let's have a referendum on the death penalty then but when we have the result let's do nothing at all as we said before it took place it would have "nil" effect.

How would you describe a referendum under those circumstances? It's a big opinion poll ultimately.

[ronaldo7]

It's the SNP that are claiming it's meaningless, not sure how many times I need to repeat this. He is highlighting the ridiculous of this, the SNP whose aim is independence and want to introduce legislation in the Scottish Parliament to break up the UK in the same breath assert any bill doesn't relate to the Union or the UK and will have "nil" effect.

It's like saying does anyone believe if the advisory referendum goes ahead and everyone takes part and Yes win 55/45 the SNP will when the result is announced go 'yes well let's just ignore that as we said it would have no effect so let's move on and forget it even happened" that's clearly ridiculous and that's what he is pointing out. He is pointing out the absurdness of the argument and that's why he refers to it as "strange".

My point was that Sir James was disagreeing with you. He doesn't think it's meaningless, he actually thinks it's very important.

The other point on you saying the SNP are claiming it's meaningless.

This is their court submission, and the word meaningless isn't there. Just because you're repeating yourself, doesn't make it true. :aok:

https://www.snp.org/the-snps-supreme-court-submission-on-the-independence-referendum/

Back to court for me. Enjoy your day.

[He's here!]

The unionist lawyer seems to be arguing that a referendum wouldn’t be meaningless?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is he actually a unionist? Come to that, does the Lord Advocate support independence?

[JeMeSouviens]

Is he actually a unionist? Come to that, does the Lord Advocate support independence?

He's representing his client, the UK gov, so maybe the unionists' lawyer would be more accurate. I like that he's the "Treasury Devil". :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Well. That was a slap down of Sir James. :greengrin

Right, back to the Lord Advocate, who says “careful consideration” was given to bringing the reference, the first since devolution, and that it is not a “trivial” affair (Sir James talked about bringing cases “willy-nilly”) - it is “a matter of utmost constitutional importance”

Lord Advocate quite annoyed with Sir James for saying cases could be brought “willy-nilly” - it “is to belittle the enormity of the issue that has been brought to the court - it’s a real issue that has been festering since devolution”. She says his characterisation is “so unfair”

Doesn't seem meaningless to those in court.

[James310]

Well. That was a slap down of Sir James. :greengrin

Right, back to the Lord Advocate, who says “careful consideration” was given to bringing the reference, the first since devolution, and that it is not a “trivial” affair (Sir James talked about bringing cases “willy-nilly”) - it is “a matter of utmost constitutional importance”

Lord Advocate quite annoyed with Sir James for saying cases could be brought “willy-nilly” - it “is to belittle the enormity of the issue that has been brought to the court - it’s a real issue that has been festering since devolution”. She says his characterisation is “so unfair”

Doesn't seem meaningless to those in court.

I am not sure saying something is "so unfair" in the highest court in the land is quite the win you think it is. The court deals in points of law, not if someone thinks something is fair or not, that's irrelevant.

[ronaldo7]

I am not sure saying something is "so unfair" in the highest court in the land is quite the win you think it is. The court deals in points of law, not if someone thinks something is fair or not, that's irrelevant.

You've been partial today on making out someone is saying something they're not.

Where have I said I think whatever the Lord Advocate says is "a win"?

Try staying on track and don't misquote me please. Have you found the word meaningless in the SNP representations yet?

She slapped him down because of his "willy nilly" quote, and made out she was somehow only bringing the case for spurious reasons

[James310]

You've been partial today on making out someone is saying something they're not.

Where have I said I think whatever the Lord Advocate says is "a win"?

Try staying on track and don't misquote me please. Have you found the word meaningless in the SNP representations yet?

She slapped him down because of his "willy nilly" quote, and made out she was somehow only bringing the case for spurious reasons

Meaningless has always been my interpretation, if you think a referendum that has no effect on anything is the opposite and is infact meaningful them so be it.

I was surprised at the Lord Advocate almost getting emotional, "...it's unfair...it's not right...it's so unfair".

[ronaldo7]

Meaningless has always been my interpretation, if you think a referendum that has no effect on anything is the opposite and is infact meaningful them so be it.

I was surprised at the Lord Advocate almost getting emotional, "...it's unfair...it's not right...it's so unfair".

When you said the SNP said it, they actually didn't, it was your word all along. Thanks for the update.

I thought the Lord Advocate carried herself very well yesterday and today. Sir James on the other hand, was across his brief, but arrogant with it, especially when speaking of the process of the Scottish Parliament.

Each James to his own though. :wink:

[Stairway 2 7]

I don't think it's meaningless as it brings momentum on the path to what I believe is inevitable independence. The other parties will obviously boycott, they would be insane not to. It will probably be a crap turn out and an overwhelming victory.

Opposition will say that was pointless and the individual vote will be. But I believe it would be an important step when you have no other path. It will help keep momentum towards a full referendum being granted

[James310]

I don't think it's meaningless as it brings momentum on the path to what I believe is inevitable independence. The other parties will obviously boycott, they would be insane not to. It will probably be a crap turn out and an overwhelming victory.

Opposition will say that was pointless and the individual vote will be. But I believe it would be an important step when you have no other path. It will help keep momentum towards a full referendum being granted

A fair view to take, obviously I disagree that a boycotted referendum where Yes wins on something like 99% advances Independence but a reasonable point on momentum.

[ronaldo7]

I don't think it's meaningless as it brings momentum on the path to what I believe is inevitable independence. The other parties will obviously boycott, they would be insane not to. It will probably be a crap turn out and an overwhelming victory.

Opposition will say that was pointless and the individual vote will be. But I believe it would be an important step when you have no other path. It will help keep momentum towards a full referendum being granted

"History is made by those who show up"~ Benjamin Disraeli.

[Ozyhibby]

If the Supreme Court give the go ahead then the referendum will be the law of the land and the SG will, if they win, be empowered to seek the dissolution of the the union. The UK gov can of course prevent that by force of law. We will then no longer be in a voluntary union.
That’s when the crazies start to get involved. It’s best we avoid that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't think it's meaningless as it brings momentum on the path to what I believe is inevitable independence. The other parties will obviously boycott, they would be insane not to. It will probably be a crap turn out and an overwhelming victory.

Opposition will say that was pointless and the individual vote will be. But I believe it would be an important step when you have no other path. It will help keep momentum towards a full referendum being granted

Pretty sure this is an academic discussion anyway because the court case will go against SG, precisely because an advisory ref *wouldn't* be meaningless. It might have no legal effect, but it would have a huge political one. If it's allowed though, a boycott surely becomes tricky for Unionism when something's been ok'd by "their" supreme court?

[JeMeSouviens]

I brought up the use of referenda for controntentious issues. It was making the point as part of a wider argument that referenda are not 'no consequence' activities. So I'm not sure it's a 'car crash' as you describe.

Excellent new word - all HG threads should be controntentious! :greengrin :top marks

[archie]

I don't think it's meaningless as it brings momentum on the path to what I believe is inevitable independence. The other parties will obviously boycott, they would be insane not to. It will probably be a crap turn out and an overwhelming victory.

Opposition will say that was pointless and the individual vote will be. But I believe it would be an important step when you have no other path. It will help keep momentum towards a full referendum being grantedI think this goes to the heart of it. It's not about a referendum that leads to independence - the SG case is that it can't. But it is to maintain and build political momentum.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think this goes to the heart of it. It's not about a referendum that leads to independence - the SG case is that it can't. But it is to maintain and build political momentum.

That's not strictly true - the SG case is that the referendum (if advisory) can't effect Independence by itself. But it can certainly lead to indy if it produces a Yes result. The SG would ask for indy negotiations on the basis of the people's advice. Which could be legally ignored of course but the politics would be tricky for everyone?

[James310]

If the Supreme Court give the go ahead then the referendum will be the law of the land and the SG will, if they win, be empowered to seek the dissolution of the the union. The UK gov can of course prevent that by force of law. We will then no longer be in a voluntary union.
That’s when the crazies start to get involved. It’s best we avoid that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. If the referendum has no effect on the Union how do you start negotiations on the end of the Union on the back of the referendum. Both can't be true, unless you are saying the referendum will have an impact on the Union, but that's the opposite of what the SNP are asking for.

[archie]

Excellent new word - all HG threads should be controntentious! :greengrin :top marksIndeed!

[Moulin Yarns]

There are three potential outcomes:

MSPs have the power to pass an independence referendum bill

they are specifically barred from it

the court decides it would be premature to decide

[Ozyhibby]

That's not strictly true - the SG case is that the referendum (if advisory) can't effect Independence by itself. But it can certainly lead to indy if it produces a Yes result. The SG would ask for indy negotiations on the basis of the people's advice. Which could be legally ignored of course but the politics would be tricky for everyone?

That’s the main point here. This is a political battle. On one side you have those against Scottish people being able to choose and on the other, those for Scottish people having a choice.
For some people who might have thought themselves to be in favour of democracy, there will be discomfort in finding themselves on the wrong side of that argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

That doesn't make sense. If the referendum has no effect on the Union how do you start negotiations on the end of the Union on the back of the referendum. Both can't be true, unless you are saying the referendum will have an impact on the Union, but that's the opposite of what the SNP are asking for.

The SNP can choose to ignore a yes vote if they so wish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

That's not strictly true - the SG case is that the referendum (if advisory) can't effect Independence by itself. But it can certainly lead to indy if it produces a Yes result. The SG would ask for indy negotiations on the basis of the people's advice. Which could be legally ignored of course but the politics would be tricky for everyone?Sure would be tricky. I guess for unionists there is the take part/boycott issue. The potential to strike a pretty killer blow if the referendum was won (risky) vs delegitimising the referendum by non participation (messy). Equally, SG have to balance potential to win vs legitimacy. I suspect SG would like full participation to give that wider political legitimacy. But lots of risks all round.

[Moulin Yarns]

As I see it, any referendum is to find out what the electorate thinks about the question posed.

Should Scotland be an independent country is the likely question.


If the outcome is yes then the Scottish government asks Westminster government to accept the outcome and begin negotiations.

Scenario 1.

Uk government accept the outcome and begin negotiations.


Scenario 2. UK government refuse to accept outcome and the case goes to the European Court of human rights.

Any other scenarios?

[Stairway 2 7]

5 years ago only 40% turned out for the catalan independence referendum after opposition parties chose to boycott. 5 years later yes for independence has dropped quite a bit in the polls. The cards are stacked unfortunately.

There are plenty reasons that the cases are different Catalonia isn't a country already, it didn't get granted by central courts, Catalonia is richer than the area its trying to leave. I also don't know the ages of yes no, in Scotland yes is obviously weighted younger.

It does show governments can ignore referendums

[Ozyhibby]

Sure would be tricky. I guess for unionists there is the take part/boycott issue. The potential to strike a pretty killer blow if the referendum was won (risky) vs delegitimising the referendum by non participation (messy). Equally, SG have to balance potential to win vs legitimacy. I suspect SG would like full participation to give that wider political legitimacy. But lots of risks all round.

If Douglas Ross is involved, I’m sure they could both boycott and not boycott at different points of the campaign.

All this talk of unionist boycott will be hard to row back if they decide they need to participate. And I think the Labour Party will find it difficult to not participate. A half boycott by unionists is very dangerous for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

That’s the main point here. This is a political battle. On one side you have those against Scottish people being able to choose and on the other, those for Scottish people having a choice.
For some people who might have thought themselves to be in favour of democracy, there will be discomfort in finding themselves on the wrong side of that argument.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat's a very partisan framing of it. You could equally say that we have a constitutional settlement that one side wants to change unilaterally. That would be the same as Bavaria claiming it could have a referendum on leaving Germany (which is not allowed) or the northern isles saying it wants a vote on options in the event of a future yes vote.

[marinello59]

As I see it, any referendum is to find out what the electorate thinks about the question posed.


I’d tend to disagree with that, they should be used to confirm the will of the people. Big difference.

[archie]

As I see it, any referendum is to find out what the electorate thinks about the question posed.

Should Scotland be an independent country is the likely question.


If the outcome is yes then the Scottish government asks Westminster government to accept the outcome and begin negotiations.

Scenario 1.

Uk government accept the outcome and begin negotiations.


Scenario 2. UK government refuse to accept outcome and the case goes to the European Court of human rights.

Any other scenarios?Out of interest why do you think it would go to ECHR? I know some yes groups favour an approach to the UN on the basis of self determination, though this is constrained by the UN principle of territorial integrity.

[Stairway 2 7]

As I see it, any referendum is to find out what the electorate thinks about the question posed.

Should Scotland be an independent country is the likely question.


If the outcome is yes then the Scottish government asks Westminster government to accept the outcome and begin negotiations.

Scenario 1.

Uk government accept the outcome and begin negotiations.


Scenario 2. UK government refuse to accept outcome and the case goes to the European Court of human rights.

Any other scenarios?

Uk government could say there is a threshold of votes that need cast for it to be legitimate. If it goes under they would say there wasn't the will of the nation to ask the question again.

Not that I think that is fair

[James310]

https://twitter.com/ProfTomkins/status/1580205353954082819?t=NgUEbiM8I0FduUt5kP3fAQ&s=19

Yes it's ex Tory MSP Adam Tomkins but he is also a constitutional lawyer and Professor of Law at Glasgow University, and has written many books on the constitution.

He thinks it's game over.

"Those closing submissions of the Lord Advocate’s were quite revealing. “I’m only here because the FM sent me”?! Was that a plea in law for pity, for mercy, or what? Strangely emotional, & failing entirely to meet the legal argument put by the UK’s lawyers in this case. #GameOver"

[Ozyhibby]

Uk government could say there is a threshold of votes that need cast for it to be legitimate. If it goes under they would say there wasn't the will of the nation to ask the question again.

Not that I think that is fair

Pretty sure the rules on referendums themselves are devolved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Pretty sure the rules on referendums themselves are devolved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Edinburgh Agreement gave SG the power to set terms for a one off referendum.

[James310]

Pretty sure the rules on referendums themselves are devolved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On non reserved matters they are. Is the constitution a reserved matter...well according to the Scotland Act it is.

[Ozyhibby]

The Edinburgh Agreement gave SG the power to set terms for a one off referendum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_(Scotland)_Act_2020


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

5 years ago only 40% turned out for the catalan independence referendum after opposition parties chose to boycott. 5 years later yes for independence has dropped quite a bit in the polls. The cards are stacked unfortunately.

There are plenty reasons that the cases are different Catalonia isn't a country already, it didn't get granted by central courts, Catalonia is richer than the area its trying to leave. I also don't know the ages of yes no, in Scotland yes is obviously weighted younger.

It does show governments can ignore referendums

~40% of cast votes were recorded but more were seized and destroyed by Spanish police who also beat the **** out of some potential voters. Apart from a few ultras at either extreme, I don't think anyone here wants to emulate Catalonia!

[Stairway 2 7]

Pretty sure the rules on referendums themselves are devolved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But uk government decides if it actually means anything no, so could say what they will accept. I doubt they will, it will more likely just point out the turn out, if it is indeed bellow 50%

[JeMeSouviens]

That's a very partisan framing of it. You could equally say that we have a constitutional settlement that one side wants to change unilaterally. That would be the same as Bavaria claiming it could have a referendum on leaving Germany (which is not allowed) or the northern isles saying it wants a vote on options in the event of a future yes vote.

UK politicians have always said that Scotland could be independent if people here voted for it. It's only since that actually looked like a genuine likely possibility that they've started equivocating.

[Stairway 2 7]

~40% of cast votes were recorded but more were seized and destroyed by Spanish police who also beat the **** out of some potential voters. Apart from a few ultras at either extreme, I don't think anyone here wants to emulate Catalonia!

You think that would further increase yes in the polls but its regular went down over the last 3 years. It's hard to fight the machine

[archie]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_(Scotland)_Act_2020


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe article you quote is agreeing with me: 'administration and governing of referendums in Scotland on any issue within the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament'.

[JeMeSouviens]

You think that would further increase yes in the polls but its regular went down over the last 3 years. It's hard to fight the machine

Since the question in Catalonia for practical purposes is actually something like, "Do I want Catalonia to declare an independence that would mean Spanish tanks rolling into Barcelona and the police knocking the crap out of me?", it's not entirely surprising that support has dropped.

[Stairway 2 7]

Since the question in Catalonia for practical purposes is actually something like, "Do I want Catalonia to declare an independence that would mean Spanish tanks rolling into Barcelona and the police knocking the crap out of me?", it's not entirely surprising that support has dropped.

It rose alot in the two years after but has dropped just as much since late 2019. Not sure why. Quebec is another that had a few referendums but support has faded. I don't think this will happen in Scotland but at the same time it shows the importance of seizing the correct moment