Another vote t'other side of the Border.

[L00b 441]

Perhaps you could look up the phrase "once in a generation".

I know its meaning, but where is that phrase mentioned?

 

Is that your claiming that circumstances have changed materially since 1975?

We waited a bit too long on the EU. Scotland is too fast.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

[unbeliever 10]

I know its meaning, but where is that phrase mentioned?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alex-salmond-makes-u-turn-over-once-in-a-generation-scottish-independence-referendum-10500405.html

[L00b 441]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alex-salmond-makes-u-turn-over-once-in-a-generation-scottish-independence-referendum-10500405.html

Ah, so it was just a soundbite from the ex-SNP's boss. As I vaguely recalled.

 

And that is binding upon Scotland's devolved legislature how?

 

You are aware of the 2016 SNP's electoral manifesto pledge, on which it was democratically elected after that soundbite, right?

It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.

I'm pretty sure I linked it on here not so long ago

 

Clearly, the timing is all down to Cameron, May and the Leave voters. Take it up with them

[unbeliever 10]

Ah, so it was just a soundbite from the ex-SNP's boss. As I vaguely recalled.

 

And that is binding upon Scotland's devolved legislature how?

 

You are aware of the 2016 SNP's electoral manifesto pledge, on which it was democratically elected after that soundbite, right?

 

I'm pretty sure I linked it on here not so long ago

 

Independence referenda are a matter for the Westminster parliament, and it wasn't in their 2015 manifesto on which their Westminster MPs were elected.

That manifesto indicated that they accepted the result of the previous vote.

 

I keep saying that they should have their vote, but seeing as we can't trust the word of the SNP on respecting the result we should have firm terms in advance going into this one. Unlike the Brexit vote, this is quite possible for the Scotland vote and it should therefore be done.

Last time they asked for home rule and just called it independence. Even if they'd won (the SNP) Scotland would not be a sovereign state right now.

Edited March 29, 2017 by unbeliever

[L00b 441]

Independence referenda are a matter for the Westminster parliament, and it wasn't in their 2015 manifesto on which their Westminster MPs were elected.

That manifesto indicated that they accepted the result of the previous vote.

Well, boo-f****-hoo, mate: it's a majority of 2016-elected Holyrood MSPs that want IndyRef2, not a majority of the 2015-elected Scottish subset of Westminster MPs.

[unbeliever 10]

Well, boo-[expletive deleted]-hoo, mate: it's a majority of 2016-elected Holyrood MSPs that want IndyRef2, not a majority of the 2015-elected Scottish subset of Westminster MPs.

 

Please take out the masked swearing before the moderators start deleting posts en-masse.

The constitutional arrangements are pretty clear. Holyrood does not have power in this matter.

 

And as I keep saying, despite the fact the the polls don't indicate they want one, we should probably give them one anyway. But the terms and timing will be set by the sovereign government of Westminster, not the devolved assembly in Holyrood.

That is what is required under the law, endorsed by the people of Scotland in a referendum only 2 and a half years ago.. They voted to remain part of the national governance of the United Kingdom. It's ridiculous that you would pretend this invalid with the ink on that mandate still not dry.

[L00b 441]

The constitutional arrangements are pretty clear. Holyrood does not have power in this matter.

Yes, we know all about sovereignty deficit in this day and age

And as I keep saying, despite the fact the the polls don't indicate they want one, we should probably give them one anyway. But the terms and timing will be set by the sovereign government of Westminster, not the devolved assembly in Holyrood.

You're in for a shock, methinks. Watch this space.

That is what is required under the law, endorsed by the people of Scotland in a referendum only 2 and a half years ago.. They voted to remain part of the national governance of the United Kingdom. It's ridiculous that you would pretend this invalid with the ink on that mandate still not dry.

I'm not pretending that it's invalid at all.

 

I just don't wear the sort of blinkers, under which people living in a democracy are not allowed to change their collective mind, regardless of any timescales.

 

And if IndyRef2 gets Leavers all frothy-mouthed, well that's just bonus points, innit?

[unbeliever 10]

Of course they're entitled to change their mind.

I never suggested otherwise.

 

Thing is that they haven't. The SNP have just decided to throw a narcissistic tantrum.

Nor have the UK people changed their mind on Brexit by the way.

Edited March 29, 2017 by unbeliever

[apelike 10]

Which they have abjectly failed to do. If the EU is competent, then it should reject the Article 50 notice as having failed to meet the constitutional requirements.

That would be fun to watch from a safe distance...

 

The government have listened and in the latest case also rejected and have only defied convention and not any law. As far as the constitutional requirements are concerned in the make up of the UK and dealing with Scotland they were spelt out by the judge in the appeal court case. In this case foreign affairs are reserved for the UK parliament in which Scotland are also part of and the Sewel convention only applies to devolved matters. Therefore any constitutional requirement re the EU and A50 seem to have been met and probably the reason why Scotland have not challenged the decision.

[Berberis 10]

What`s particularly interesting is that Theresa May is not wanting the referendum at the time when it`s actually most sensible for the Scots to have the referendum, assuming they want to stay in the EU, so

 

Becoming a member of the EU takes longer than 2 years.

[andyofborg 11]

Becoming a member of the EU takes longer than 2 years.

 

it doesn't have too.....

 

scottish law and institutions should meet all the eu requirements.

 

the scottish government can say that scotland will join the euro once the necessary economic conditions are met, these are likely to take many years to achieve so it can carry on using the scottish pound.

 

the only thing stopping scotland becoming a member of the eu within months, would be other members wary of this driving forward separatist's in their own country and that's hardly scotlands problem.

[phil752 10]

with a population less than Yorkshire and Humberside, why do we allow the Scotish tail to wage the dog?