Tory sleaze in effect?
https://twitter.com/KellyIpsosMORI/status/1466014673111822344?t=-IcmJCmghcXUHI7Zvr-3mA&s=19
Long Live Boris!
tjagain
Full MemberVery interesting. Gove has said westminster will not go to court to attempt to stop another referendum.
Why bother? Any referendum would not have any legal force as it is a reserved matter.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/29
http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2021/05/section-29.html
Wrong.
Unless tested in court it would be fine. Because unless tested in court the matter of its competence would remain unsettled
Recently Westminster won two court cases over this but the legislation had been passed and would have been binding if Westminster had not gone to court
So if the Scottish parliament passes a binding referendum bill UK parliament has two choices. go to court to test if the bill is within the competence of Holyrood or let it go unchallenged. If they do not go to court then the binding referendum bill is passed and enacted
The only way it can be stopped is via a court challenge
There is a smidge of an issue there. The EU referendum was expressly not legally binding, yet the UK government considered itself bound by it.
The more immediate legal issue is that the Scottish Parliament doesn't appear to have the power to hold referenda at all, whether about reserved matters or matters within its legislative competence. But I am not completely sure about that.
I am fairly sure they can hold a non binding one on reserved matters or a binding one on devolved matters
But the only way to know for sure is for it to be tested in court as in the case of the childrens rights legislation
So if Holyrood passes a bill for a binding referendum on independence UK government only has the two choices. go to court to test it or accept it without going to court
Uk parliament cannot just declare it to be outside of the competence of holyrood
I an not sure what you mean by "accept it" @tj. The UK gov can wait until the issue of whether the referendum was legal arises in a context where it matters, for example it gets to the stage where Scotland actually takes steps towards independence. If the referendum outcome is a No, then the matter never needed deciding in court.
greyspoke - the only opportunity to challenge it is after the bill is published and before it becomes law. Can you imagine the row if they did not go to court to stop the referendum but then after the fact try to claim its meaningless?? Once the bill is passed in holyrood it becomes law unless the courts strike it out as beyond the reach of Holyrood
UK government have two choices only - challenge thru the courts once the bill is presented or accept its happening
No way on earth could they wait for the result and then challenge it in court - apart from anything else then it becomes really easy for Scotland to use the provisions in the UN charter / international law on the "self determination of a peoples" which has a load of precedent including in Ethiopia / Eritra and in the balkens
The only way they could stop it is wait till the bill is presented and passed the nchallenge thru the courts immediatly. there is no other avenue legally or politically possible
Scotroutes - you know if there is not a referendum on the timetable of "middle of the parliament" Sturgeon will be out on her ear and her political career ended. Its absolutly clear that she cannot prevaricate any longer. It would take 5 mins for the coup and she will be gone and disgraced
So if Holyrood passes a bill for a binding referendum on independence UK government only has the two choices. go to court to test it or accept it without going to court
It's not quite so clear cut though. If they pass a bill they call "binding" without a section 30 order then the UK government (independence is not a devolved matter) just say that a referendum is not "legal". In that scenario a large majority of No voters will just ignore the referendum.
The Yes majority will end up being something like 90%. No voters will say that the referendum was irrelevant as it wasn't a legally binding one in which case the onus is on Holyrood to go to court to prove it was. And good luck with that!!
the UK government cannot just declare it not legal - they have to go to court for that.
We will know in a year Scotroutes. Referendum has to be by the end of 2023 or Sturgeon is gone and disgraced so the bill has to be within a year of now
Want an "eat your hat" bet on it? Or all the Greggs you can eat?
the UK government cannot just declare it not legal – they have to go to court for that.
The obvious counter argument is that the SNP can't simply declare it legal, especially as independence is outwith the remit of Holyrood.
None of us are constitutional lawyers so we are just all speculating, but my guess is that with a decision as big as this then it's the side demanding change that is probably going to be required to prove their case in court. The status quo is always likely to be the default condition.
They can tho Kenny - pass a law at holyrood. Its law unless struck down by a court
Its exactly how it went with the childrens rights thing. Holyrood passed the bill and it was referred to the courts by westminster and struck out as not within the competence of Holyrood If Uk government had not referred it to court it would have become law in Scotland.
Only the courts can judge if its within the remit of Holyrood and the default is it becomes law if passed unless court rules otherwise.
Only the courts can judge if its within the remit of Holyrood and the default is it becomes law if passed unless court rules otherwise.
And what way do you think (be honest) the UK court would rule? I think we all know the answer.
As I have said, independence is not within the remit of Holyrood so the SNP would have to come up with a very compelling case.
Assuming that the SNP does manage to get a referendum through the Scottish Parliament, what is to stop any individual taking the Scots Government to court over it?
A new poll shows a clear majority of Scots in favour of separation if the vote was tomorrow.
And yet it doesn’t.
Good question. I have no answer. I do not know if they would have standing
within the bills that set up holyrood there is a dispute mechanism that uses the courts. I don't think this mechanism is accessible to individuals just to UK government but thats a mightly fine question - I guess judicial review would be the answer
And what way do you think (be honest) the UK court would rule?
Actually on the cases I have seen go thru so far fairly reasonably on the merits not on the politics.
And yet it doesn’t.
eh? looks like it to me
you know if there is not a referendum on the timetable of “middle of the parliament” Sturgeon will be out on her ear
I'm not sure that's the credible threat many hardcore SNP members think it is. For that to be an effective strategy to winning an indy ref you need:
1. A leader who the whole party gets behind - no major infighting between factions
2. A leader who the majority of the country actually see as credible - not just the hardcore indy voters
I don't see any likely candidates who aren't likely to be just as hesitant if Sturgeon is (no point holding a ref you expect to loose - the opportunity doesn't come around often). If they pull the trigger on a leadership battle they risk getting some walloper at the helm who not only loses them the referendum but also the ability to retain their current holyrood strength.
and her political career ended. Its absolutely clear that she cannot prevaricate any longer. It would take 5 mins for the coup and she will be gone and disgraced
She strikes me as less of an egomaniac than her predecessor. I'm not sure she'd be totally devastated if "her political career ended". She'll be in her early 50's having led her party through its strongest period, having led her country through the pandemic and generally being regarded as doing well. She recently talked about (not) having children, having considered fostering etc. I could see her moving on to a new life (I assume her husband's time as party CEO is probably not going to last for too much longer!). She certainly wouldn't be disgraced. In fact, if whoever ousted her ****s up and loses the ref, ends up distracted in years of legal battles with Westminster, or the ability to command a majority (with a small coalition partner) at Holyrood - she'd probably be remembered fondly not just be SNP members but by the country.
I'm sure I've said it before on this site but it's probably worth reiterating, one of the issues with Independence is who do we see at the future "Prime Ministers of Scotland". Who do you see having useful discussions with the rUK PM on share of the legacy debt, border issues, fishing rights etc. I don't see too many obvious candidates. Of course, its compounded by the fact that come independence ALL THREE major political parties essentially implode and the political landscape changes; in my opinion that's most likely to be a good thing no matter which side of the divide you sit on - but it is difficult to imagine how the factions might divide and converge.
Sturgeon will be out on her ear and her political career ended. Its absolutly clear that she cannot prevaricate any longer. It would take 5 mins for the coup and she will be gone and disgraced
Tripe.
A new poll shows a clear majority of Scots in favour of separation if the vote was tomorrow.
And yet it doesn't
eh? looks like it to me
Look carefully - it shows the %ages for those "likely to vote" (and the headline figure of 45/55 is based on those "likely to vote, who have made up their mind"), but only 80-90% of the people surveyed indicated they would be likely to vote. Suddenly you are not into a "clear majority of scots" but rather "a clear majority of Scots who can be bothered to vote" territory - then there's the issue of the error bars, they suggest even within that group that Ipsos-MORI aren't absolutely certain that with their sample size etc that it couldn't be much closer (or maybe even a tie/other way round). Its close to saying what you think it does - but until it actually says that a clear majority of scots (not just scots who bother to vote) with sufficient confidence in the stats people will always be sceptical.
My feeling is that the glue that holds the broad church of the SNP together is under great strain.
the only way Sturgeon can continue is to have that referendum on the timetable she laid out. If that does not happen then the party will split into factions and she will be ousted and her political legacy will be that under her leadership the party fractured and lost its power and the chance for independence
I believe the SNP have been in power too long without proper opposition. After 10 - 12 years any government runs out of steam and ideas and get infiltrated by the power hungry and infighting sets in. the SNP are beyond that point
the chance needs to be taken now or it will be gone for a long time. I have great admiration for Sturgeon and think she is the best major political leader we have in the UK - head and shoulders above anyone else from labour, lib dems and tories north or south of the border
Lets not kid ourselves. The tories and the current government in particular, care not a jot for the precious "Union". The will throw any and everyone under the bus if its politically expedient, just ask their former friends in Northern Ireland. The UK government opposed Scottish independence because losing Scotland would be a strategic nightmare.
Where would Trident go? Where would the air bases go, they aren't located in the north of Scotland because the pilots like Cullen Skink. What happens to the GIUK gap? Britain's play at being an middle power with global influence becomes very shaky if it loses the top third of its island.
Does anyone honestly think Johnson gives two shit about us uppity Scots? He's only really shown much enthusiasm for the Union since he became Prime Minister, probably because he's been taken aside and shown a map of the North Atlantic and told what the first to letters in NATO stand for.
ALL THREE major political parties essentially implode and the political landscape changes; in my opinion that’s most likely to be a good thing no matter which side of the divide you sit on – but it is difficult to imagine how the factions might divide and converge.
MY view on this is :
Labour will split into a hard left faction occupying the ground that the SSP did and the rest will join with the urban, young left of the SNP to become a left of centre social democratic grouping
the Urban left of the SNP as above will join with the rump of labour and the rural right of the SNP will join with the one nation tories to become a centre right group
the Greens will continue much as they are as will the lib dems
the right of the tory party will go off and become a hard right anti everything party similar to Westminster tories now
so from left to right we end up with:
hard left group with small influence. A centre right group , a centrist group and a centre right group - they will share the power between them in coalition and control maybe 70 - 89% of the vote
A hard right group
And the greens who do not really sit in the left / right groupings
But surely if those that aren’t counted in the poll are unlikely to vote, that’s why they can forget about them?
Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a poll “if it were to be held tomorrow”, but rather “maybe not tomorrow but at some random point in the future where you still think you are unlikely to vote?”.
I voted no in 2014 and then voted to remain in 2016.
After the vote to leave the EU I changed my mind on Scottish Indy. Then for the past couple of years I switch between being pro and against Scottish Indy.
Look how difficult and disastrous Brexit has been. Then imagine trying to leave a political union of a few hundred years with a land border. It will be a hugely complicated struggle. Why would Westminster make any effort to provide good will in negotiations? Especially with a Tory government there?
People dream of being rid of the Tories in Scotland but the SNP is a broad church there are rabid right wingers who vote SNP as they are pro Indy, So who is to say we wouldn't end up with a similarly right wing party in charge of Scotland? We are not that different to England.
As in my above post I believe the realignment in a post independent scotland would see the power shared between centre right and centre left - not a chance of a hard right tory party in Scotland doing anything. Centre right as in Where Merkel stands in Germany
Look how difficult and disastrous Brexit has been. Then imagine trying to leave a political union of a few hundred years with a land border. It will be a hugely complicated struggle. Why would Westminster make any effort to provide good will in negotiations? Especially with a Tory government there?
Hmm, so you'd prefer to continue with an ever worsening UK, remembering that Brexit isn't the strategy, it's just the vehicle currently used to implement the strategy.
At what point will you realise that the UK of barely a decade ago has gone?
To be replaced by a country that, for example, is passing legislation to remove citizenship from any citizen or can lock up any protestor for 51 weeks on pretty much zero basis.
A thought came to me yesterday, was Teresa May's Govt the UK version of the Weimar Republic?
Hmm, so you’d prefer to continue with an ever worsening UK
No, that's why I swither. Ideally I would remain part of the UK get in a Labour government and have closer ties/re-join the EU. The question is how likely that is to happen, and at the moment it looks quite far away. But will the country turn things around? Yes, just depends how long.
Scot Indy isn't a silver bullet, it will be extremely difficult and will take years to sort out. It could end up better overall but by that time the UK could also have sorted itself out.
Does anyone honestly think Johnson gives two shit about
us uppity Scots?anyone other than himself or Tory donors?
FIFY
With a sensible approach and realistic deadline - not an artificial grandstanding deadline set for internal political expedience a la EU Exit - and it doesn't have to be difficult. Many countries all over the world have borders with each other. Some even used to be the same country, or in a political union. I know that is underthink but people really do get "monkey brain" over all this.
Look to the "velvet divorce" - the almost accidental split up of Czechoslovakia. thats the ideal
Does anyone honestly think Johnson gives two shit about us uppity Scots?
I don't know he keeps promoting Michael Gove......
The tories and the current government in particular, care not a jot for the precious “Union”
Clearly bollox, what Facebook groups are you in to read that rubbish
Surprisingly it will be labour that struggles, they are already non committal on defending the Union,
If, as Nicola Sturgeon says, she wants an independent Scotland to be an "outward looking, welcoming nation" and "a country that celebrates diversity”, she's got her work cut out.
I got into an argument with a dog walker the other day only for him to tell me to go back to my own country. Not sure what qualifies as 'your own' country but I guess I need to find out and pack my bags.
It wasn't an isolated incident either. I got called a foreign b*tch once.
It's my own fault. I live in Dumfries and Galloway which is a bit special.
I had the same in Edinburgh though. I committed a minor driving mistake which must have meant the other driver was held up by at least a minute. I got told to go back to Poland. Err, ok.
You'll find these type of people in all corners of the world I know. It just's another reason why the end of human race would be a good thing in my book.
As for independence, although I live in Scotland, I wouldn't vote as I don't plan to stay and I think it should be up to those who not only live here now but plan to stay here longterm. I can certainly see why an independent Scotland could be a good thing. Be interesting to see the results if and when Indyref2 happens.
Big and daft - they care about prestige and the loss of it if scotland gains independence, they care about the damage it would do to the balance of payments, they care about the nukes bases etc. they give not one hoot about what is best for the people of scotland
If the tories gave a hoot about the people of Scotland they would not have dragged us out of the EU against our will, they would have not taxed the NHS covid bonus, they would not have done loads of stuff. All they want scotland for is a submarine base and the grouse moors
Did you read what Johnson said about the scots?
But surely if those that aren’t counted in the poll are unlikely to vote, that’s why they can forget about them?
Yes - I'm not suggesting the pollsters are doing anything misleading; but the poll doesn't say a majority of scots in favour of Indy - it says a majority of scots who would vote are in favour of indy. The net outcome might be the same - but you get a Brexit mess where 52% of the votes case were in favour of something but it was actually only about 1/3rd of the electorate. Of course you can say they gave up their right to have a say - but for indy to be a genuine success and not another brexiteers/remoaners mess they need to genuinely bring the majority of people, not just majority of votes cast with them. And those shouting that Indy now has majority of people's support need to be very careful that they don't misinterpret the "non voters" as don't cares.
I tend to agree Poly - while 50% of the vote +1 is enough to pass it would be good to see an overwhelming majority - 60+ % of the vote
Scot Indy isn’t a silver bullet, it will be extremely difficult and will take years to sort out. It could end up better overall but by that time the UK could also have sorted itself out.
Yep, but it wouldn't really matter to me if rUK sorted itself out (I'd hope they do, I'm not for a minute anti-English), we'd be in charge of our own affairs, which to me is the whole point, I'm not a 'The UK is broken' type, I just feel we'd be happier and healthier as a nation on our own.
I don't really care about the financials (although Cameron and Gideon admitted last time this wasn't even a question, Scotland was financially viable), all the barriers people put forward in arguments, trade, borders, EU, whatever, are not insurmountable, sure it won't be easy, but IMHO it'll be worth it.
For me my preferred solution would be proper electoral reform that must be proportional UK wide and some sort of federal solution for the union - a union of 4 equals ( I know this is hard to find) too much of my life has been blighted by tory governments with big majorities on a minority of the vote allowing such nonsense as brexit and I see no signs of the pact needed between the non tory parties to do this
however - I see no chance of this in my lifetime. I see a good chance for scots independence and I am certain a independent scotland would have a better government than we get from the UK so for purely pragmatic reasons I support scots independence
@tjagain - lets be 100% clear I am not a tory, but your argument loses credibility when you write stuff like this:
If the tories gave a hoot about the people of Scotland ...they would have not taxed the NHS covid bonus,
You can't change taxation policy because "we like these people" or "they do valuable work for society" or whatever argument is made for why an NHS worker paid a bonus should not be taxed but a private employee (or any other public servant) should.
they would not have done loads of stuff. All they want scotland for is a submarine base and the grouse moors
I suspect the list is quite a bit bigger than that. Oil, renewables & trees (suddenly UK's carbon footprint is not so attractive without Scotland), fishing rights to negotiate with EU. Probably some of the radar infrastructure and fighter jet "strength" against Russia...
Did you read what Johnson said about the scots?
Boris is not the tories. Don't think that he's actually in control nor that once he goes their interest in the Union will change.
If the tories gave a hoot about the people of Scotland they would not have dragged us out of the EU against our will
They dragged 48% of the population of the UK out against their will. On this subject they didn't treat Scotland any differently to the rest of the UK. Doesn't sound like exceptionalism.
