Scotland Indyref 2

Tj – among the inconvenient truths that nats typically ignore, does that include all the messages coming from the EU on the subject?

Jambas – May is probably quite happy to have a swarm of angry nats buzzing around. Who are the losers there (apart from the people of Scotland)? The labour party primarily….the status quo suits her narrow interests well.

Whats May going to do – invade?

armed only with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play

If scotland holds a referendum and gets a majority then scotland becomes independent under UN principles.

Stop talking nonsense

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

Ninfan – its not nonsense. there is no reason at all Holyrood could not arrange its own referendum without Westminster permission and it would be recognised by the UN.

Sure it would be harder to arrange and more expensive but obstruction from Westminster would push a lot of folk into yes

then explain why Kosovo isn’t recognised by the UN (or the EU for that matter)

TJ, you are talking nonsense. ultimately Scotland needs Westminster approval, I happen to think they wouldn’t have much choice but to give it, as for one, they actually believe in democracy, and if they did deny it, it would put a hefty dent in the image of being the best democracy in the world that they like to protect.

It could declare UDI without it. But it’s far from clear what would happen there. To state that it’s that simple and that’s it done is the land of the loonball saor alba-ists I mentioned a few pages back.

Come back to reality.

You also make a massive leap about pushing people towards yes. People will avoid that type of confrontation. Me included. People ain’t that militant.

Those who are currently divorced from reality yet claim to have the wider interest of society – cough, not just financial (?!!) – at heart, would do well to read Varoufakis’ “and the poor suffer what they must” before imagining that the EU remains a solution to their current “oppression and misfortune'”

Spoiler: it will prick the fluffy bubble and bring readers back down to reality with a bump

seosamh77 – Member
Tj you are talking nonsense. ultimately Scotland needs Westminster approval.

It could declare udi without it. But it’s far from clear what would happen there. To state that it’s that simple and that’s it done is the land of the loonball saor albaists I mentioned a few pages back.

Come back to reality.

It depends if you believe that sovereignty belongs to the head of state or to the people, ie are you a subject or a citizen?

I happen to think they wouldn’t have much choice but to give it, as for one, they actually believe in democracy, and if they did deny it, it would put a hefty dent in the image of being the best democracy in the world that they like to protect.

although, I think the likely scenario there would be an indy ref 3 with full legal backing as a last gap stop.. As it would no doubt be easy to argue that the unionist didn’t vote in a non-legal ref. Which would be fair comment imo.

TJ that’s a fantasy like a game of Top Trumps – UN rules 🙂 If it where that simple Basque Country and Catalonia would have been independent decades ago. May doesn’t have to do anything at all just ignore it. SNP had two years to make their case, formulate their plans discuss EU scenarios. All we are seeing from them and on here is the aame old arguments which Scots rejected 55-45

If Holyrood wants a referendum and Westminster tries to block it you don’t think that would push people towards Yes?

Its utter nonsense to suggest Holyrood could not hold a referendum without Westminster permission. Yes it would be harder to do but it could be done

epicyclo – Member
It depends if you believe that sovereignty belongs to the head of state or to the people, ie are you a subject or a citizen?

It’s got nothing to do with belief. It’s there in legal black and white, and you wouldn’t take the Scottish people with you in a unilateral declaration, so it’s a moot point.

tjagain – Member
If Holyrood wants a referendum and Westminster tries to block it you don’t think that would push people towards Yes?

Nope, I don’t think they will. Not in any militant sense.

Yes a referendum without Westnmmister approval would not be binding. However UDI would then be activated and there is nothing Westminster could do about it

In some ways this would be a good option for Scotland because if its a hard breakup which in that scenario it would be Scotland would not have to take on any of the debt.

Joe, you have admirable patience!

We will be back to (technical) debt defaults soon…. 😉

What was the definition of insanity???

seosamh77

Of course its all ifs and buts but my opinion is if Westminster tries to block a referendum then that would push a couple of % of people to vote yes and that could be the difference

Personally tho for referendums of this type I would like a big majority to make change – as the EU referendum should have been. not 50% +1 but something that makes it the settled will of the people. 50% of the electorate or 60% of the vote or something like that

tjagain – Member
50% of the electorate or 60% of the vote or something like that

Agreed there.

The argument should move on, independence for Yr Hen Ogledd!!!

Well that’s another issue that the nativists could face up to… 🙂

It wouldn’t be binding only in the sense that the Brexit referendum is not binding. If a sufficient majority for independence was there, it can’t be ignored politically.

Not sure that 51-49 in counted votes would be quite enough, even on a high turnout – I’d want >50% of the electorate.

Personally tho for referendums of this type I would like a big majority to make change – as the EU referendum should have been. not 50% +1 but something that makes it the settled will of the people. 50% of the electorate or 60% of the vote or something like that

I thought you wanted Scottish independence?

I do aracer – but only as a pragmatist not an ideological way – and I want it to be obviously the settled will of the people. If 70% of the people vote yes then its clearcut no argument. if its 50% +1 then a lot of folk will be very disgruntled.

Quite an amount of acrobatics going on here with some yes voters arguing for a requirement to have more than a simple majority in any Indy referendum yet most yes voters were critical of the 79 devo referendum which had a 40% stipulation. Meantime there’s brexiteers arguing that advisory referendums should just be ignored. In my opinion both ignoring referendums and udi are dangerous steps.

with UDI you have zero chance of iS being allowed into the EU, Spain, Italy etc would simply say no before they have similar issues

I didn’t say it should be a requirement but I would like to see it

gordimhor – Member
In my opinion both ignoring referendums and udi are dangerous steps.

Allowing fundamental questions to be answered on extremely slim, and changeable(imo) majorities is the dangerous precedent. A genie that won’t be put back in it’s bottle now.

Sorry tjagain misread your post

Ninfan – its not nonsense. there is no reason at all Holyrood could not arrange its own referendum without Westminster permission and it would be recognised by the UN.

International law only provides for self-determination where that does not affect territorial integrity. Seccession by self-determination (i.e. the UDI) is not legally recognised. The internationally recognised territory is the United Kingdom and any break up of that territory is an internal matter.

You can find many papers on the topic – it is a contentious one and there is a desire for change but, right now, the territorial integrity of the UK trumps any right to self-determination in international law.

Some countries may choose to recognise states in spite of this, others are free not to.

That’s why places like Kosovo are still contentious (and I guess Crimea now too).

Eritrea? Slovenia? Croatia?

Scotland is a country – the UK is a union.

So how would a country which ignored international law, renages on its debt, and has a potentially volatile currency attract the foreign investment that would be required to finance its deficit and which currently supports its core industries?

Scotland is a country – the UK is a union.

What is Texas then?

teamhurtmore – Member
So how would a country which ignored international law, renages on its debt, and has a potentially volatile currency attract the foreign investment that would be required to finance its deficit and which currently supports its core industries?

If there’s an international law that says a country should remain subject to another one when its citizens say otherwise, then it should be ignored. Which law is it?

What debt? The one attached to the currency we are not allowed to use?

And what deficit? In the event we are talking about the UK is keeping all its goodies, not splitting them, so it seems fair it keeps its deficit. Split the goodies, we share the deficit seems fair.

But in any case the UK is a Union. This is not like Yorkshire splitting off from its parent country. This is a case of one country deciding it no longer wishes to be in a Union with another.

Epic your innocence is as breathtaking/warming as it is worrying.

So Alex proved that if you keep repeating lies often enough, people start believing you

3 Jackson’s Entry – the birthplace of posttruthpolitics

teamhurtmore – Member
Epic your innocence is as breathtaking/warming as it is worrying.

So Alex proved that if you keep repeating lies often enough, people start believing you

3 Jackson’s Entry – the birthplace of posttruthpolitics

Yes, I was innocent enough to expect answers…. 🙂

They were covered in depth last time round. If you guys haven’t learned from last time, god help you. It’s not best of five you know!

If you are going to start with what debt and what deficit, then it’s auto-switch off time. And Wee Brucie was surprised to hear that this is not a forum for serious debate 😉

Oh no – some one quoted a THM post so I saw it.

THM keeps on claiming Salmond lied – but has never been able to actually point out a single lie. Just that Salmond has a difference of opinion to THM and as THM is always right then Salmond must be lying. Despite the fact that Salmond was a nop notch economist and THM is some sort of something he won’t tell us.
*klaxon sounds*

STEP AWAY FROM THE THREAD

Is you klaxon on mute – it keeps sounding but has no effect?

Despite the fact that Salmond was a nop notch economist and THM is some sort of something

Salmond and I were taught by the same department – he just seems to have conveniently forgot basic macro – and poor old epic believed him. Dont forget even his old policy chief described his economic case as deluded.

Or perhaps nop notch is the (anglo) Scottish word for the opposite of top notch?

has never been able to actually point out a single lie

Turn off your supposed block and you might see (and learn)

And what deficit? In the event we are talking about the UK is keeping all its goodies, not splitting them, so it seems fair it keeps its deficit. Split the goodies, we share the deficit seems fair.

er, do you understand what a deficit is? How do you propose rUK keeping your deficit?

THM keeps on claiming Salmond lied

Shall we start with Salmond’s prediction of a pending oil “boom” and average annual tax receipts of £48B in the face of quite overwhelming evidence to the contrary at that time?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/alex-salmond-scotland-oil-boom

Or are we chalking this wee oversight up to Salmond’s “chipper” attitude and positive vision for Scotland?

I have been told off forum that THM does not believe I am blocking him
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/stw-killfile-plugin