Is democracy important?

[Ad Lib]

It is simply not credible to say that Westminster could ever get away with abolishing the Scottish Parliament. The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is limited by the political forces that sustain that constitutional arrangement in the first place. Holyrood is going nowhere.

[wirez]

We have 8% representation in the UK Parliament. If the political will was there, they could do it no problem.

Even if they did not abolish it, they could neuter the Scots Parliament enough that it would be an entirely pointless exercise.

You know this

[Blaven]

Your Scottish party leader sees a flaw in this logic

And he's right, there would be nothing we could do about it

When was this?

This must be truly horrific viewing for Libby.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

No and no. Although you know how ridiculous that comparison is yourself.

Here is a clip of UKIPs Coburn being asked to simply name 1 of these crazy EU rules.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-27575199

It's not though.

Using that argument is no different from UKIP 's view of the relationship between the UK and the EU.

It's nonsense.

[vikingTON]

It is simply not credible to say that Westminster could ever get away with abolishing the Scottish Parliament. The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is limited by the political forces that sustain that constitutional arrangement in the first place. Holyrood is going nowhere.

Well no, in the frame actually set out by 'ever', given the UK state's lack of a written constitution, it could 'get away' with, or simply 'decide' whatever it wants. In the frame of 'ever' it could demolish the NHS as easily as it was established - an institution tied more closely and with a greater populist support than the Scottish Parliament, under multiple potential scenarios. There is no constitutional guarantee of a Scottish assembly, nor a salient political logic to secure it.

Does this mean it is likely to be abolished? No. But it quite clearly could be, regardless of Scottish approval.

[Ya Bezzer!]

A boon for all the Salmond loathers. An opportunity to turf him out of office at the height of his political career. It would be like Churchill and Atlee.

The difference is they had Atlee as an alternative in 1945. We have Johann Lamont.

[Ya Bezzer!]

It is simply not credible to say that Westminster could ever get away with abolishing the Scottish Parliament. The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is limited by the political forces that sustain that constitutional arrangement in the first place. Holyrood is going nowhere.

Surely there is a sort of precedent for this with the abolition of the GLC in 1986.

When it clashed with the Tory government under Thatcher she simply abolished it, against public wishes.

[lichtgilphead]

Surely there is a sort of precedent for this with the abolition of the GLC in 1986.

When it clashed with the Tory government under Thatcher she simply abolished it, against public wishes.

Another similar situation occurred in 1972, when the Northern Ireland Parliament was suspended and replaced by "direct rule" before it's abolition.

(Obviously, a NI Assembly was re-established at a later date, before anyone indulges in an exercise in pedantry)

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Good to see Ad Lib confirming that Willie Rennie isn't credible.

[git-intae-thum]

The difference is they had Atlee as an alternative in 1945. We have Johann Lamont.

I concede that point!!

[ayrmad]

I concede that point!!

She'll be away at the earliest opportunity after a YES vote, she's only ever been there as a stooge, a party fighting for real power doesn't/won't need a stooge.

[Ad Lib]

Surely there is a sort of precedent for this with the abolition of the GLC in 1986.

When it clashed with the Tory government under Thatcher she simply abolished it, against public wishes.

The context behind the GLC existing is completely different from the context behind the Scottish Parliament existing.

The Scottish Parliament is the product of constituent claims that enable the Union to continue to exist. It relates to fundamental claims about the nature of sovereignty and power vis-a-vis the British state and Scotland. The same is not true of an institution of local government.

Another similar situation occurred in 1972, when the Northern Ireland Parliament was suspended and replaced by "direct rule" before it's abolition.

(Obviously, a NI Assembly was re-established at a later date, before anyone indulges in an exercise in pedantry)

There weren't clear constituent claims underpinning the 1972 settlement in the way there was with Scotland through, among other things, the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It was the product of a Westminster hand-me-down botched job on the partition of Ireland and not a product of civil society coming together to extract concessions from the constitutional order by appealing to popular sovereignty. In a profoundly political constitution a trite rehearsal of legislative supremacy gives a hugely misleading account of what in any meaningful sense can actually be done or not done by Westminster. The underlying claims and process behind the creation of an institution significantly affects the real power Westminster exercises in relation to it.

As anyone with an ounce of common sense would quickly observe, even then the circumstances in which Westminster abolished the old settlement in Northern Ireland were utterly extraordinary. It was a response, quite simply, to civil war. When you reach the stage of a civil war, you have an environment where the preconditions for law to exist are in many critical respects absent, and constitutional crisis exists irrespective of whether or not your Parliament is or claims to be sovereign. You see a reversion to a lawless state where constituent claims have more influence on the resulting constitutional arrangements than the formal Diceyan account of Westminster's legislative power. In any federal or legally entrenched arrangement, the notion that there would not be, on at least some level, emergency powers negating or severely restricting the activities of a state government bedraggled by sectarian conflict is unthinkable and insofar as they were lacking, the centre would probably take control anyway.

Insofar as Scotland *might* fall into sectarian warfare in our lifetimes, sure, Westminster might look to seize control and to suspend the operation of Holyrood were it itself to cease to function as a result of this civil war. However, in much the same way as the fact that, notwithstanding Holyrood having lacked the legislative competence to hold a referendum Westminster could not, in reality, get away with refusing to give them that necessary power when the situation demanded it, there is no realistic practical set of circumstances in which Westminster could get away with attempting to abolish the Scottish Parliament without constitutional consequences so severe that they would be jeopardising the very existence of the British state.

Let's inhabit reality. Holyrood is going nowhere.

[ayrmad]

The context behind the GLC existing is completely different from the context behind the Scottish Parliament existing.

The Scottish Parliament is the product of constituent claims that enable the Union to continue to exist. It relates to fundamental claims about the nature of sovereignty and power vis-a-vis the British state and Scotland. The same is not true of an institution of local government.

There weren't clear constituent claims underpinning the 1972 settlement in the way there was with Scotland through, among other things, the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It was the product of a Westminster hand-me-down botched job on the partition of Ireland and not a product of civil society coming together to extract concessions from the constitutional order by appealing to popular sovereignty. In a profoundly political constitution a trite rehearsal of legislative supremacy gives a hugely misleading account of what in any meaningful sense can actually be done or not done by Westminster. The underlying claims and process behind the creation of an institution significantly affects the real power Westminster exercises in relation to it.

As anyone with an ounce of common sense would quickly observe, even then the circumstances in which Westminster abolished the old settlement in Northern Ireland were utterly extraordinary. It was a response, quite simply, to civil war. When you reach the stage of a civil war, you have an environment where the preconditions for law to exist are in many critical respects absent, and constitutional crisis exists irrespective of whether or not your Parliament is or claims to be sovereign. You see a reversion to a lawless state where constituent claims have more influence on the resulting constitutional arrangements than the formal Diceyan account of Westminster's legislative power. In any federal or legally entrenched arrangement, the notion that there would not be, on at least some level, emergency powers negating or severely restricting the activities of a state government bedraggled by sectarian conflict is unthinkable and insofar as they were lacking, the centre would probably take control anyway.

Insofar as Scotland *might* fall into sectarian warfare in our lifetimes, sure, Westminster might look to seize control and to suspend the operation of Holyrood were it itself to cease to function as a result of this civil war. However, in much the same way as the fact that, notwithstanding Holyrood having lacked the legislative competence to hold a referendum Westminster could not, in reality, get away with refusing to give them that necessary power when the situation demanded it, there is no realistic practical set of circumstances in which Westminster could get away with attempting to abolish the Scottish Parliament without constitutional consequences so severe that they would be jeopardising the very existence of the British state.

Let's inhabit reality. Holyrood is going nowhere.

So what happens if the Scots get so pissed off with the status quo that a civil war becomes a possibility, "we'll take your parliament", "oh dae ye fcuking 'hink sae".

It's a major flaw in a democracy when one side has the ultimate say over another, we can and will do better running our own affairs.

[Confidemus]

Let's inhabit reality. Holyrood is going nowhere.

And you can guarantee that can you?

We can 100% ensure that Holyrood goes nowhere with a Yes vote. If only you'd support it, Libbers.

[Homer Thompson]

I really wish we'd stop working with this false equivalence. It also makes assumptions we shouldn't take for granted.

The alternative is not "govern ourselves or be governed by Westminster".

The choice must either be understood as:

1. Be governed by Holyrood only or be governed by a mixture of Holyrood and Westminster

Or:

2. Decide that "we" should be Scotland for all purposes of statehood and subsidiary governance or that "we" are Scotland for some purposes and Britain for others.

Sometimes its better to simplify things down to a summary statement rather than try and cover the minutia

ETA - maybe it could be simplified better to simply, get rid of WM or not.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Some people clearly rattled and in scare mode.

The idea that the Scottish Parliament would abolished is on the zoomer-level of some of BT's worst efforts.

[Tio Pepe]

Some people clearly rattled and in scare mode.

The idea that the Scottish Parliament would abolished is on the zoomer-level of some of BT's worst efforts.

Correct. Absolutely absurd scaremongering of the highest order.

Strange that!

[Ya Bezzer!]

The context behind the GLC existing is completely different from the context behind the Scottish Parliament existing.

The Scottish Parliament is the product of constituent claims that enable the Union to continue to exist. It relates to fundamental claims about the nature of sovereignty and power vis-a-vis the British state and Scotland. The same is not true of an institution of local government.

There weren't clear constituent claims underpinning the 1972 settlement in the way there was with Scotland through, among other things, the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It was the product of a Westminster hand-me-down botched job on the partition of Ireland and not a product of civil society coming together to extract concessions from the constitutional order by appealing to popular sovereignty. In a profoundly political constitution a trite rehearsal of legislative supremacy gives a hugely misleading account of what in any meaningful sense can actually be done or not done by Westminster. The underlying claims and process behind the creation of an institution significantly affects the real power Westminster exercises in relation to it.

As anyone with an ounce of common sense would quickly observe, even then the circumstances in which Westminster abolished the old settlement in Northern Ireland were utterly extraordinary. It was a response, quite simply, to civil war. When you reach the stage of a civil war, you have an environment where the preconditions for law to exist are in many critical respects absent, and constitutional crisis exists irrespective of whether or not your Parliament is or claims to be sovereign. You see a reversion to a lawless state where constituent claims have more influence on the resulting constitutional arrangements than the formal Diceyan account of Westminster's legislative power. In any federal or legally entrenched arrangement, the notion that there would not be, on at least some level, emergency powers negating or severely restricting the activities of a state government bedraggled by sectarian conflict is unthinkable and insofar as they were lacking, the centre would probably take control anyway.

Insofar as Scotland *might* fall into sectarian warfare in our lifetimes, sure, Westminster might look to seize control and to suspend the operation of Holyrood were it itself to cease to function as a result of this civil war. However, in much the same way as the fact that, notwithstanding Holyrood having lacked the legislative competence to hold a referendum Westminster could not, in reality, get away with refusing to give them that necessary power when the situation demanded it, there is no realistic practical set of circumstances in which Westminster could get away with attempting to abolish the Scottish Parliament without constitutional consequences so severe that they would be jeopardising the very existence of the British state.

Let's inhabit reality. Holyrood is going nowhere.

And yet Westminster retains the power to do so. The fact is that, while right now, it's unlikely to happen all it takes is a certain series of circumstances for the likelihood of that course of action to change radically. History is littered with examples of unforeseen events and conflicts.

Westminster needn't even completely abolish the Scottish Parliament, it can put a financial squeeze on it by withdrawing or reducing funding. Everyone knows that the Barnett Formula is unpopular at Westminster and could be scrapped with minimum fuss as it is merely a convention and isn't even enshrined in law . Any hostile power to devolution in Westminster could quite easily run down the Scottish Parliament to the point that it would be unable to meet spending commitments or simply became ineffective.

It's not so hard to imagine an increasingly far right wing Conservative government in coalition with say, a UKIP style party in the near to medium future. If that were to happen, the Scottish Parliament would surely become one of the top political targets of that particular government.

[Baxter Parp]

Correct. Absolutely absurd scaremongering of the highest order.

Strange that!

How can a fact be scaremongering?

[wirez]

Ffs it was Willie Rennie talking about the Scottish Parliament being a temporary institution that could be abolished at Westminsters pleasure.

Now the No camp are starting to scare each other!

Project Fear right enough