Jump to content

When will indyref2 happen?


Colkitto

Indyref2  

816 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Dependent upon? Oh my. Feel the cringe.

A neighbour which is not in the EU and which is therefore of no relevance to the EU.

Yes. Dependent upon. Scotland is dependent upon its neighbouring states for cooperation in matters like trade and security. Just like every state on the planet.

We are particularly dependent on the rest of the UK for trade. Export and import volumes bear this out as a result of complex and interdependent supply chains, proximity and centuries of regulatory alignment.

There’s no use just pretending that’s not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

So translating a law which already applies to Scotland into Scots Law should take minutes. 

Someone clearly hasn’t been following the legislation going through the UK Parliament since June 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Someone clearly hasn’t been following the legislation going through the UK Parliament since June 2017.

Which hasn't taken effect yet as we're still in the EU. How would Westminster cope with this new legislation if we don't leave? I'd assume Scotland could do the same, and ignore the Brexity revisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Moonglum25 said:

Want to spin this again and where do you get 5.4 million who are entitled to vote.

Scotland Region total

Remain: 1,661,191

Leave: 1,018,322

Electorate: 3,987,112
Verified Ballot Papers: 2,681,179
Turnout: 67.2%
Ballot Papers Counted : 2,681,179
Valid Votes: 2,679,513
Rejected Ballots: 1,666

So just over 1.3 million or 32% did not vote but you are right that was "Overwhelmingly to remain"

Nearly 2-1, utterly overwhelming.  Support for EU membership now polling at 72% in Scotland.  5.4 million EU citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Even if it doesn't happen a lot has already changed.

If a Brexit happens it won't be neat.

If a Brexit doesn't happen Scotland isn't getting another referendum.

That's entirely reasonable, if there is no Brexit there is no mandate for a referendum.  Equally, however, if a Brexit of any form does happen there is an unassailable rock-solid mandate for a referendum in this parliament and it would be outrageous and anti-democratic if it was blocked by WM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Yes. Dependent upon. Scotland is dependent upon its neighbouring states for cooperation in matters like trade and security. Just like every state on the planet.

We are particularly dependent on the rest of the UK for trade. Export and import volumes bear this out as a result of complex and interdependent supply chains, proximity and centuries of regulatory alignment.

There’s no use just pretending that’s not the case.

I'm sure that's all true but it's hardly relevant to our negotiations with the EU.

2 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Someone clearly hasn’t been following the legislation going through the UK Parliament since June 2017.

Irrelevant. 

You really need to give Project Fear a rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Which hasn't taken effect yet as we're still in the EU. How would Westminster cope with this new legislation if we don't leave? I'd assume Scotland could do the same, and ignore the Brexity revisions.

No. As strichner points out we’d still have to set up high tens of public bodies with the relevant infrastructure and resourcing that currently operate at UK level *because* the EU requires that bodies with those functions should exist.

Most of the reason Scotland is compliant with the acquis now is because of UK law and public bodies. It’s not because “Scots law” is compliant.

This stuff is complicated and people who don’t understand it should listen to those who say it is.

This is not to say that it therefore shouldn’t be done. Far from it. But don’t trust that it’s a tick box exercise for a Parliament of absolute haddies like Neil Findlay, Sandra Whyte and Annie Wells. It’s a 5 year project to get right. Look at how a much better resourced and (in terms of scrutinising EU legislation) much more experienced Parliament has fucked up a lot of the detail of a less complicated and less multi-dimensional extrication from joint governance structures.

Legal systems and the powers of public bodies aren’t a copy and paste job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

No. As strichner points out we’d still have to set up high tens of public bodies with the relevant infrastructure and resourcing that currently operate at UK level *because* the EU requires that bodies with those functions should exist.

Most of the reason Scotland is compliant with the acquis now is because of UK law and public bodies. It’s not because “Scots law” is compliant.

This stuff is complicated and people who don’t understand it should listen to those who say it is.

This is not to say that it therefore shouldn’t be done. Far from it. But don’t trust that it’s a tick box exercise for a Parliament of absolute haddies like Neil Findlay, Sandra Whyte and Annie Wells. It’s a 5 year project to get right. Look at how a much better resourced and (in terms of scrutinising EU legislation) much more experienced Parliament has fucked up a lot of the detail of a less complicated and less multi-dimensional extrication from joint governance structures.

Legal systems and the powers of public bodies aren’t a copy and paste job.

Aye but when those people are a bunch of misanthropic manchild incels it can be taken with a huge pinch of salt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

No. As strichner points out we’d still have to set up high tens of public bodies with the relevant infrastructure and resourcing that currently operate at UK level *because* the EU requires that bodies with those functions should exist.

Most of the reason Scotland is compliant with the acquis now is because of UK law and public bodies. It’s not because “Scots law” is compliant.

This stuff is complicated and people who don’t understand it should listen to those who say it is.

This is not to say that it therefore shouldn’t be done. Far from it. But don’t trust that it’s a tick box exercise for a Parliament of absolute haddies like Neil Findlay, Sandra Whyte and Annie Wells. It’s a 5 year project to get right. Look at how a much better resourced and (in terms of scrutinising EU legislation) much more experienced Parliament has fucked up a lot of the detail of a less complicated and less multi-dimensional extrication from joint governance structures.

Legal systems and the powers of public bodies aren’t a copy and paste job.

I'm not pretending to know anything like what you know about this stuff, but would an independent Scotland not face 90% of these bureaucratic hurdles to go through of transferring power from London if the UK remained in the EU? Some of the public bodies you talk about we could simply rejoin as shared EU institutions, instead of pointless duplication. Of course it's complicated, nobody said it wouldn't be, but just because Westminster has utterly lost its mind doesn't mean that a rational independent Scotland couldn't establish an EU compliant legal and financial system in time to jump the mythical queue in front of Moldova.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm not pretending to know anything like what you know about this stuff, but would an independent Scotland not face 90% of these bureaucratic hurdles to go through of transferring power from London if the UK remained in the EU? Some of the public bodies you talk about we could simply rejoin as shared EU institutions, instead of pointless duplication. Of course it's complicated, nobody said it wouldn't be, but just because Westminster has utterly lost its mind doesn't mean that a rational independent Scotland couldn't establish an EU compliant legal and financial system in time to jump the mythical queue in front of Moldova.

I don’t think you understand what most of the Brexit process has been about.

The bodies we would need to replicate aren’t EU ones. They’re UK ones that exist because, or do things because, of EU membership, but which are designed to meet EU obligations on a UK-wide basis. Those bodies and their governance structures change as and when the UK leaves, but a lot of the internal structures there have pre-emptively been reformed in ways that, if Brexit were cancelled, would now cause logistical problems *for the UK* in terms of long term acquis compliance.

No one serious doubts that, if the political will was there, an independent Scotland could take the steps to comply with the acquis and join the EU as a full member within, say, 5-10 years of secession. But it would be a lot more complicated if the UK had left the EU beforehand and/or the rUK left the EU while Scotland’s accession negotiations were going on.

Therefore, there would have to be a 4d chess style multilateral negotiating effort to coordinate UK-Scottish separation issues with the EU-Scottish accession process and the rUK-EU future relationship.

We have already seen that the second and third of these are complicated enough in their own right. Though politically less fraught, you basically would still have the same practical questions for the Scottish-English border as the Northern Ireland backstop dilemma. This is not to say that arrangements couldn’t or wouldn’t be put into place but the one thing they definitely wouldn’t be is simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I don’t think you understand what most of the Brexit process has been about.

The bodies we would need to replicate aren’t EU ones. They’re UK ones that exist because, or do things because, of EU membership, but which are designed to meet EU obligations on a UK-wide basis. Those bodies and their governance structures change as and when the UK leaves, but a lot of the internal structures there have pre-emptively been reformed in ways that, if Brexit were cancelled, would now cause logistical problems *for the UK* in terms of long term acquis compliance.

No one serious doubts that, if the political will was there, an independent Scotland could take the steps to comply with the acquis and join the EU as a full member within, say, 5-10 years of secession. But it would be a lot more complicated if the UK had left the EU beforehand and/or the rUK left the EU while Scotland’s accession negotiations were going on.

Therefore, there would have to be a 4d chess style multilateral negotiating effort to coordinate UK-Scottish separation issues with the EU-Scottish accession process and the rUK-EU future relationship.

We have already seen that the second and third of these are complicated enough in their own right. Though politically less fraught, you basically would still have the same practical questions for the Scottish-English border as the Northern Ireland backstop dilemma. This is not to say that arrangements couldn’t or wouldn’t be put into place but the one thing they definitely wouldn’t be is simple.

Thanks for the explanation. How difficult would it be for the UK to cancel their preparing for Brexit legislation if it turns out they aren't leaving after all? 5 years? 10? I think you're wildly exaggerating the trouble an Independent Scotland would have of rejoining the EU after successfully negotiating separation from the rUK, which will be the hard bit. 

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kuro said:

That's entirely reasonable, if there is no Brexit there is no mandate for a referendum.  Equally, however, if a Brexit of any form does happen there is an unassailable rock-solid mandate for a referendum in this parliament and it would be outrageous and anti-democratic if it was blocked by WM.

The mandate would be to seek to hold a referendum. The power to hold a referendum isn't devolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

1) No. As strichner points out we’d still have to set up high tens of public bodies with the relevant infrastructure and resourcing that currently operate at UK level *because* the EU requires that bodies with those functions should exist.

2) Most of the reason Scotland is compliant with the acquis now is because of UK Law... ...It’s not because “Scots law” is compliant.

3) This is not to say that it therefore shouldn’t be done. Far from it. But don’t trust that it’s a tick box exercise for a Parliament of absolute haddies like Neil Findlay, Sandra Whyte and Annie Wells. It’s a 5 year project to get right. Look at how a much better resourced and (in terms of scrutinising EU legislation) much more experienced Parliament has fucked up a lot of the detail of a less complicated and less multi-dimensional extrication from joint governance structures.

4) Legal systems and the powers of public bodies aren’t a copy and paste job.

1) Many of these bodies already have Scottish, Welsh & NI branch offices. As strichiner correctly points out, the ICO's office in Edinburgh does not deal with work relating to the Freedom for Information (Scotland) Act. What he doesn't point out is that 45 Melville Street deals with all other UK ICO duties, with a  main focus on data protection. As all these experienced staff will not be required by the rUK ICO after independence, I would suggest that Indy Scotland might be able to offer them a job, maybe even in their current premises?

Can you give details of your figure of "high tens" of bodies? I hope you've not just plucked it from the list of 86 UK ombudsmen which was identified at the time of the 2014 referendum.

2) UK law which is currently applicable in Scotland will continue to apply in Scotland until it is revised - exactly the same position that Westminster would have found itself in with regard to EU law if the UK had left in March as originally planned. For example, are you seriously suggesting that the few remaining provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 that are still in force today (like Section 12) would automatically be revoked on Independence day? If so, what is the basis for your belief?

3) I see your Annie Wells & raise you Kirstene Hair. There are incompetents in both parliaments. Are you seriously suggesting that any of the MSP's mentioned actually write legislation or are anything but party placemen that vote however they are told?

Your argument just appears to be a variation on "too wee, too poor & too stupid". Of all pro-union posters on here, I would have expected better from you.

4) Agreed. It's a shame that Westminster has adopted a cut'n'paste attitude in recent years c.f. "the red tape challenge" of 2011-2015 - take seven sets of regulations and consolidate them into one that has practically the same effect 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

The mandate would be to seek to hold a referendum. The power to hold a referendum isn't devolved.

Semantics.  The mandate is to hold if the Scottish govt choose to do so in this parliament and its unassailable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kuro said:

Semantics.  The mandate is to hold if the Scottish govt choose to do so in this parliament and its unassailable.

The Scottish govt can only hold it with Westminsters permission though. The authors of the SNP manifesto knew this when they wrote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Thanks for the explanation. How difficult would it be for the UK to cancel their preparing for Brexit legislation if it turns out they aren't leaving after all? 5 years? 10? I think you're wildly exaggerating the trouble an Independent Scotland would have of rejoining the EU after successfully negotiating separation from the rUK, which will be the hard bit. 

There would need to be wholesale repeal of the preparatory legislation, including reinstating some legislation that’s already been repealed by the partial commencement of the EU (Withdrawal) Act.

At departmental level, no-deal planning would need wound down, which affects internal departmental structures and priorities. For a proper wind-down you’re talking significant reviews of departmental budgets and personnel even beyond the cancellation of legal changes. In some departments changes have already been made even though their practical effects await exit day. For example the immigration rules and administrative arrangements for the settled status scheme are already legislated for and partly in force for the purposes of people being able to apply for it. Similar is true for things like road haulage permits, reciprocal healthcare arrangements and the like.

Cancelling Brexit is a huge task administratively and legally (there are I readily admit no easy options now). The idea that the local Scottish Office of these UK departments or affiliated public bodies could just trundle on seamlessly without significant knock-on effects on their operations (and that they would in any case be ready on day one to assume all functions carried out on a UK-wide basis without significant rethinking about their legal/corporate structures) is I think woefully optimistic.

As for the wider point, I think the point is precisely that the negotiations with the rUK will be very difficult *precisely because* an independent Scotland would want to preserve key strategic relations with rUK *while also* seeking to meet the acquis in its own right and join the EU.

That proposition was far easier in a world where (a) rUK had no plans to leave the EU or at any rate (b) had no plans to leave the single market and customs union.

Just as the chosen solution to the Northern Ireland border largely dictates the kind of future relationship the UK can have with the EU, so too the terms of the Scottish-UK divorce largely dictates Scotland’s future relationships with both the UK and the EU.

Legally, administratively and politically, these things aren’t easily separable.

I say this as someone who supports a second independence referendum and literally left a political party two and a half years ago over it, so please appreciate I’m saying this not from a position of Yoon pessimism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Kuro said:

Semantics.  The mandate is to hold if the Scottish govt choose to do so in this parliament and its unassailable.

I mean it is pretty assailable. Otherwise they would have legislated for it by now.

That they’re having to dance around the issue strongly suggests that the Lord Advocate thinks they haven’t the legislative competence and, whatever the strength of the political mandate (and I think it’s a strong one) it isn’t an unstoppable force.

I think the Scottish Government has held off in part so far because it thinks it would lose a referendum if held anyway at the moment, but let’s not pretend this is just tactics over timing. Constitutionally (and regrettably) the main obstacle to a second independence referendum is the law of devolution. And currently that trumps any political mandate the Scottish Government morally may have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

The Scottish govt can only hold it with Westminsters permission though. The authors of the SNP manifesto knew this when they wrote it.

That view is disputed (but you wouldn't realise it from watching the BBC where it is invariably presented as fact)

The only way to find out for sure is through the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...