Scotland Indyref 2

Why would they start campaigning for IS just now?

I thought that was what the SNP have been campaigning for since it’s creation, have they just been campaigning for referenda?

This campaign is about Scotland’s right to choose.

I thought they had? Or is the problem that they came up with the wrong answer?

Who called up the Troll…

This is why we need a new killfile, it would considerably improve the STW forum experience for many of us who don’t wish to see the type of trolling that’s supposed to be against forum rules.

So SNP need just 3 of their target seats for a majority without Green help

seems like a far bit of tactical voting on both sides of the divide

Alex who?

It’s all those Scots that write for it that are to blame

Posted 1 week ago

What does nationality have to do with their politics, or are you making stuff up again? At least you are consistent. Keep up the links to the spectator as evidence, at least they give us all a laugh.( Scottish and English readers just to clarify,before I stray into your batshit mental definition of being anti English.)

So SNP need just 3 2 of their target seats for a majority without Green help

Very interesting. Gove has said westminster will not go to court to attempt to stop another referendum. I assume the legal advice is it would fail and of course the political outcome would be any attempt to stop it will be counterproductive driving more people towards independence.

Also that using the law to prevent Scotland leaving alters the UK union from one of consent to one of coercion and force

UK Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove was in Glasgow to talk to the BBC. He said the UK would not take the matter to court if the Scottish Parliament passed legislation for another independence referendum
But he later denied he was giving the Scottish government a green light to pass a referendum bill

BBC

Gove seems to get that in a way that Johnson doesn’t

Leaves snp with a problem, half the country won’t take part if its not sanctioned by Westminster

A boycott would wreck the referendum – but if its a legal and binding referendum it will not be easy to get that boycott

Boycotting votes is an interesting idea. Like, at what point do we say turnout for an election was so low because of a boycott that it doesn’t count?

For me? a turnout below 50% would not confer legitimacy

I don’t think you can give any recognition to boycotts, if you did every election would be boycotted by some group or other.

But nor should you give recognition to votes other than those organised through constitutional channels.

For me? a turnout below 50% would not confer legitimacy

Then pretty much every local election isn’t legitimate.

Yup.

How does a turnout requirement address the boycott issue? How do you know what the turnout would have been? It is a solution to a different problem.

Oh I don’t think you can – Westminster did this in the vote in the 70s for a devolved parliament and it was widely seen as a wrecking tactic ( 40% minimum of the electorate required for YES to stand)

My answer was about how I saw it. If indy ref two has a turnout below 50% then its pretty much wrecked

Tory sleaze in effect?

NEW: @IpsosMORI polling finds a 10 point lead for “Yes” on Scottish independence, with 55% support and 45% against, continuing to show that things remain finely balanced pic.twitter.com/NS6MjGPorm

— Kelly Beaver (@KellyIpsosMORI) December 1, 2021

Long Live Boris!

tjagain
Full Member

Very 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.

A new poll shows a clear majority of Scots in favour of separation if the vote was tomorrow. We'll ask some babies which way they'll vote as adults, for when the plebiscite actually takes place.

— Natalie Hunter (@NatHunter_1) December 1, 2021

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 **** 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