An independent Scotland?

Post Reply
ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by ronmcd » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:26 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:
ronmcd wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:If the advice is clear cut, I see no reason to withhold it.
Fine, if you agree that applies to every government who has received legal advice. (And I doubt its clear cut - legal advice rarely is)
Apparently, it will be clear cut in a year. Curious.
What Salmond said was the documents which will be released in 2013 once the bill has gone through Holyrood will be "founded upon legal advice", he didnt say he would release the legal advice. From the bbc article I linked to earlier:
At the very minimum, the controversy over the last couple of days leaves doubts in the air. Mr Salmond knows that - which is why he promised that the issue would be fully addressed in the Prospectus for independence which the Scottish Government will publish in October 2013, one year out from the referendum. That verdict, he said, would be founded upon legal advice.
The argument over revealing legal advice is more than just something you can pick and choose when it applies - governments dont do it, and in fact as the Scottish government have said before (and the Telegraph's Scottish political editor agreed last night on Question Time) the Ministerial Code prevents ministers from doing it! Salmond is constantly accused by Scottish labour MSP's of breaking the ministerial code, he always refers himself to the authorities when this happens, and it's always found to be nonsense. The irony of Scottish Labour demanding he do the very thing they are always spuriously accusing him of ... lol

User avatar
Santa_Claus
Your Imaginary Friend
Posts: 1985
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:06 pm
About me: Ho! Ho! Ho!
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by Santa_Claus » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:35 am

On the timing of the referendum.....

The most important thing for the SNP was to hold it as near before the next UK general election as possible where they have the bogeyman of the Tories (winning another 5 years) to scare voters with. Anything else is a bonus.

Even if the SNP loses the odds are very strong that more devolution would follow - with another referendum in 10 years or so (as political events occur). Would that be a "failure"? to some ito would be, but IMO simply the slow road to independence not the end of.
I am Leader of all The Atheists in the world - FACT.

Come look inside Santa's Hole :ninja:

You want to hear the truth about Santa Claus???.....you couldn't handle the truth about Santa Claus!!!

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23746
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by Clinton Huxley » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:37 am

These are exceptional, once in 300 year, circumstances. I think everything should be transparent, including from the pro-union side. The Scots needs to know if they are being sold a pup by the Scottish separatists.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41185
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by Svartalf » Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:01 am

ronmcd wrote:
mistermack wrote: The Union can only be dissolved by parliament and they're not going to do that if it means that they have to re-apply to the EU.
No 8-) self determination for one part of UK is NOT decided by the whole UK, hence the referendum is for people living in Scotland and not eveyone in UK. It does not matter what Westminister did to try and refuse independence for Scotland if there were a "yes" vote. And international law would agree.

As I've said, the EU could not refuse to allow UK to leave.
Or we could force them to stay and have a secession war to force them to integrate the Euro and Schengen systems to boot
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by ronmcd » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:06 am

Santa_Claus wrote:On the timing of the referendum.....

The most important thing for the SNP was to hold it as near before the next UK general election as possible where they have the bogeyman of the Tories (winning another 5 years) to scare voters with. Anything else is a bonus.

Even if the SNP loses the odds are very strong that more devolution would follow - with another referendum in 10 years or so (as political events occur). Would that be a "failure"? to some ito would be, but IMO simply the slow road to independence not the end of.
Don't disagree with any of that.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by ronmcd » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:21 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:These are exceptional, once in 300 year, circumstances. I think everything should be transparent, including from the pro-union side. The Scots needs to know if they are being sold a pup by the Scottish separatists.
I've no doubt when the people in Scotland go into the polling booths and choose, they will know everything they need and want to be able to decide. Frankly, if we don't, the YES campaign can't win.

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23746
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by Clinton Huxley » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:23 am

ronmcd wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:These are exceptional, once in 300 year, circumstances. I think everything should be transparent, including from the pro-union side. The Scots needs to know if they are being sold a pup by the Scottish separatists.
I've no doubt when the people in Scotland go into the polling booths and choose, they will know everything they need and want to be able to decide. Frankly, if we don't, the YES campaign can't win.
I'll be amazed if they are told everything, by either side.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by mistermack » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:29 am

Ron, you seem to be making up your own law, as you go along. It doesn't work that way.

The referendum doesn't make law. It simply indicates the wishes of the majority in Scotland.
Only the UK parliament can make the law that splits the country. And that's a fact. Prove it isn't so.

It's not legal for a Scottish government to declare UDI. They don't have the legal power for that.
They didn't even have the legal power for the referendum.

So it can only be done in the UK parliament. I'm sure that it will, as that SEEMS to have been agreed, although it has never been spelled out.

But how, and when, on what terms, has to be agreed and passed into law in the commons and the lords, and signed by the queen. And that is the reality. That's how it stands.
If you think it can be done without that, where's your evidence?

It's no good saying "oh, they would HAVE to agree".
They would be obligated in principle, but the how and when would have to be agreed.
And like I said, the when isn't going to arrive, until the UK is assured of remaining in the EC without having to reapply.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by ronmcd » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:31 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:
ronmcd wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:These are exceptional, once in 300 year, circumstances. I think everything should be transparent, including from the pro-union side. The Scots needs to know if they are being sold a pup by the Scottish separatists.
I've no doubt when the people in Scotland go into the polling booths and choose, they will know everything they need and want to be able to decide. Frankly, if we don't, the YES campaign can't win.
I'll be amazed if they are told everything, by either side.
Well, there will be many things that cannot be known. But the important facts will be known, the information people need to make a decision. Remember, people won't be voting on future political policy or manifesto pledges. It's one of the mistakes people make, acting as if Scotland would be a SNP dictatorship under Salmond. The people in Scotland would elect whatever independent government they wanted.

So what ARE the key issues people need to discuss in order to decide on independence? Those will be known by autumn 2014.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by mistermack » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:35 am

ronmcd wrote:I've no doubt when the people in Scotland go into the polling booths and choose, they will know everything they need and want to be able to decide. Frankly, if we don't, the YES campaign can't win.
It sounds like the excuses are coming out already.
"Oh, the people weren't fully informed. We should vote again in five years."
Cameron should be making it clear that this vote has to stand for at least 20 years.

Otherwise, the nats will keep wanting a vote, till they eventually go over 50%.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by ronmcd » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:45 am

mistermack wrote:Ron, you seem to be making up your own law, as you go along. It doesn't work that way.

The referendum doesn't make law. It simply indicates the wishes of the majority in Scotland.
Only the UK parliament can make the law that splits the country. And that's a fact. Prove it isn't so.

It's not legal for a Scottish government to declare UDI. They don't have the legal power for that.
They didn't even have the legal power for the referendum.

So it can only be done in the UK parliament. I'm sure that it will, as that SEEMS to have been agreed, although it has never been spelled out.

But how, and when, on what terms, has to be agreed and passed into law in the commons and the lords, and signed by the queen. And that is the reality. That's how it stands.
If you think it can be done without that, where's your evidence?

It's no good saying "oh, they would HAVE to agree".
They would be obligated in principle, but the how and when would have to be agreed.
And like I said, the when isn't going to arrive, until the UK is assured of remaining in the EC without having to reapply.
Oh, I absolutely agree that Westminister is currently the UK parliament, and as such has sole reserved competence for the constitution. That is why there were arguments over the legality of a referendum, because the consititution is expressly reserved. The referendum is NOT legally binding, no referendum is. What the agreement between the UK and Scottish parliaments (the Section 30 order) will do is devolve the power expressly to hold this referendum, and include an agreement that both sides will accept the result. This removes the option for people to challenge legally after the event.

Thats the point. The agreement signed by Cameron and Salmond means we have a referendum on the future of Scotland, and both sides respect the outcome.

Now, could Westminister MP's cause problems? Absolutely. Firstly, as some in the Lords threatened this week, Westminister MP's could actually refuse to pass the section 30 order, and prevent the referendum! Who would gain from that? Secondly, if the referendum resulted in a yes majority, could the MP's refuse to accept it? Of course, exactly the same thing. Who would gain from that?

In the first case, where MP's over the next few months refuse to pass the agreement (section 30), the SNP and other independence supporting parties would be massively boosted. In the second case, where MP's refuse to accept the result of a yes vote, well, then UDI would indeed be on the cards.

The point is that the universally accepted principle is of self determination. Westminister will NOT refuse to accept a yes vote. It would be unsustainable, and fly in the face of the UK pontificating on other self determination cases around the world.

There is a legal point also - I keep repeating this. The UK, and therefore Westminister, only holds power because of a voluntary union between Scotland and England. Either party legally can remove itself from that union, and a referendum of the people of one (or both) of the countries would be decisive.

There is no legal possibility of Westminister refusing, if the vote is yes.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by ronmcd » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:57 am

mistermack wrote:
ronmcd wrote:I've no doubt when the people in Scotland go into the polling booths and choose, they will know everything they need and want to be able to decide. Frankly, if we don't, the YES campaign can't win.
It sounds like the excuses are coming out already.
"Oh, the people weren't fully informed. We should vote again in five years."
Cameron should be making it clear that this vote has to stand for at least 20 years.

Otherwise, the nats will keep wanting a vote, till they eventually go over 50%.
If NO wins, then Salmond - as Cameron & he agreed - will respect the result. Both sides have agreed to respect the result. So no, Salmond will not just introduce another referendum in the next Scottish Parliament, assuming he even wins the Scottish election. There would have to be some change, some reason to try again. If there is a no vote, what will happen is the unionist parties will likely try and add more devolved powers.

But consitutional politics will not be hamstrung or restricted artificially by a pronouncement from Cameron or Westminister imposing a 20 year limit, thats nonsense. No one has that right. Parties will propose their policies in their manifestos, and the people will vote accordingly. If a new referendum or consitutional policy is proposed, people will decide by voting for parties in the normal way. Cameron "making it clear"? Doesn't sound like democracy to me.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by mistermack » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:02 pm

So you think the section 30 order will include a clause to make the poll legally binding, do you?

In spite of the fact that a section 30 order doesn't have that power?

I think you're making it up as you go along. Someone can take that power away from parliament, with no vote? I'd like to see you prove that.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

ronmcd
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Sunny Scotland
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by ronmcd » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:04 pm

mistermack wrote: It sounds like the excuses are coming out already.
"Oh, the people weren't fully informed. We should vote again in five years."
Cameron should be making it clear that this vote has to stand for at least 20 years.

Otherwise, the nats will keep wanting a vote, till they eventually go over 50%.
To be honest, you sound quite disturbed by this whole issue. Scared, even. You are actually suggesting the restriction of democracy, as if there is something wrong or treacherous about the idea of independence, something the people must not be exposed to rather than just a policy you disagree with personally. Do you not think Scots will be capable of making a sensible and correct choice, whatever that is?

I find it odd.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: An independent Scotland?

Post by mistermack » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:11 pm

ronmcd wrote:
mistermack wrote: It sounds like the excuses are coming out already.
"Oh, the people weren't fully informed. We should vote again in five years."
Cameron should be making it clear that this vote has to stand for at least 20 years.

Otherwise, the nats will keep wanting a vote, till they eventually go over 50%.
To be honest, you sound quite disturbed by this whole issue. Scared, even. You are actually suggesting the restriction of democracy, as if there is something wrong or treacherous about the idea of independence, something the people must not be exposed to rather than just a policy you disagree with personally. Do you not think Scots will be capable of making a sensible and correct choice, whatever that is?

I find it odd.
That's just so much hot air.
If democracy is so important, why don't the English and Welsh get a vote on it?
You only want the version of democracy that suits your ends.

What if the Scottish lowlands voted overwhelmingly against.
Would you respect their democatic wishes, and allow them to remain part of the UK?
Absolutely not. You only want democracy when it's going your way.

What if the Orknies and Shetlands wanted independence from the new Scotland.
Again, that's not the version of democracy we want.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Svartalf and 21 guests