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.
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. 