When will indyref2 happen?

[Ad Lib]

31 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

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 

I’ll keep it short and sweet because I find engaging with you every bit as soul-destroying as listening to Jim Murphy stump about how he’s tee-total to every religious group in the West of Scotland.

1. Scottish “branch offices” of UK executive agencies, NDPBs and departments often don’t carry out all the functions that relate to the UK’s activities in Scotland. Some of these functions won’t relate to the EU, some of these functions will be straightforward to replicate and challenges will be more administrative than legal. Others won’t. It varies significantly from body to body and function to function.

What it definitely isn’t though is a simple cut and paste job, as the analogous process of converting and correcting EU law into domestic law for a post-Brexit scenario shows. There have been plenty of instances in the 600 or so SIs passed by Westminster in the last year and a half of mistakes creeping in and SIs having to be painstakingly redrafted and relaid.

2. This is a cretinous straw man. The point is not that the substance of UK law would or could not be retained, but that the legislative mechanism by which that would be achieved would be painstaking to come up with and full of anomalies. My basis for believing this is specifically the total mess that was made of the Withdrawal Act, its related 8 or 9 enactments (many of which haven’t yet even passed) and the hundreds of statutory instruments that have been made under them. You have stated the end state, not explained the mechanism by which it is to be delivered.

Besides which, the real challenge will eh what happens when UK law diverges from Scottish retained UK law and both relate to instruments of EU law and/or retained EU law. It will be a mess, and one that will present complications for both of Scotland’s future relationships with its two main trading and security partners.

3. I readily admit Westminster is full of zoomers. I work for them. It is precisely because I’ve seen them fail and the lack of talent in Holyrood to raise it above that particular sty that I don’t have confidence that separation issues will be dealt with elegantly or well.

Which is not to say that secession shouldn’t happen. And for the avoidance of doubt I’m not a unionist. While how I vote is a private matter I will go as far as to say I would vote differently from the way I do here if I lived in Scotland.

4. As per 3 you’re making my point for me.

[Ad Lib]

28 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.

Sajid, I don’t think you’ll find many party members here.

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I’ll keep it short and sweet because I find engaging with you every bit as soul-destroying as listening to Jim Murphy stump about how he’s tee-total to every religious group in the West of Scotland.

1. Scottish “branch offices” of UK executive agencies, NDPBs and departments often don’t carry out all the functions that relate to the UK’s activities in Scotland. Some of these functions won’t relate to the EU, some of these functions will be straightforward to replicate and challenges will be more administrative than legal. Others won’t. It varies significantly from body to body and function to function.

What it definitely isn’t though is a simple cut and paste job, as the analogous process of converting and correcting EU law into domestic law for a post-Brexit scenario shows. There have been plenty of instances in the 600 or so SIs passed by Westminster in the last year and a half of mistakes creeping in and SIs having to be painstakingly redrafted and relaid.

2. This is a cretinous straw man. The point is not that the substance of UK law would or could not be retained, but that the legislative mechanism by which that would be achieved would be painstaking to come up with and full of anomalies. My basis for believing this is specifically the total mess that was made of the Withdrawal Act, its related 8 or 9 enactments (many of which haven’t yet even passed) and the hundreds of statutory instruments that have been made under them. You have stated the end state, not explained the mechanism by which it is to be delivered.

Besides which, the real challenge will eh what happens when UK law diverges from Scottish retained UK law and both relate to instruments of EU law and/or retained EU law. It will be a mess, and one that will present complications for both of Scotland’s future relationships with its two main trading and security partners.

3. I readily admit Westminster is full of zoomers. I work for them. It is precisely because I’ve seen them fail and the lack of talent in Holyrood to raise it above that particular sty that I don’t have confidence that separation issues will be dealt with elegantly or well.

Which is not to say that secession shouldn’t happen. And for the avoidance of doubt I’m not a unionist. While how I vote is a private matter I will go as far as to say I would vote differently from the way I do here if I lived in Scotland.

4. As per 3 you’re making my point for me.

That was short & sweet? It certainly didn't answer any questions posed. To me, it just looks like a long-winded reiteration of the current line being parroted by Unionists e.g. "Look how difficult it is to leave a 46 year union. Imagine how difficult it will be to leave a union of 312 years"

If you don't want to engage, please put me on ignore. I'll continue to question your assertions, but you won't have to read my 'abstentionist evangelism'.

[sophia]

I hadn't realised that it would be so difficult.

Ach well, probably best to leave it to the clever people in London as they know about really complicated legal stuff and you know what, things will turn out well in the end.

Gawd bless em.

[Tibbermoresaint]

5 minutes ago, sophia said:

I hadn't realised that it would be so difficult.

Ach well, probably best to leave it to the clever people in London as they know about really complicated legal stuff and you know what, things will turn out well in the end.

Gawd bless em.

No country has ever become independent before so clearly it can't be done. 

[Baxter Parp]

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

The power to hold a referendum is not reserved therefore is devolved.

[sparky88]

23 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

7 hours ago, sparky88 said:

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

The power to hold a referendum is not reserved therefore is devolved.

Then why did Salmond bother with the Edinburgh Agreement then?

[renton]

24 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

Then why did Salmond bother with the Edinburgh Agreement then?

There is a difference between the power to hold a referendum and the power to have that result respected. The section 30 route offers the best guarantee of that, but if done right, and with a good result, a referendum held unilaterally by the Scottish Government would be difficult for the UK Government to ignore.

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, sparky88 said:

Then why did Salmond bother with the Edinburgh Agreement then?

Two reasons.

1. BaxterParp legal supremo is, probably, wrong. Although an argument might be made that an independence referendum would be within the competence of Holyrood or the functions of Bute House, it’s not a strong one and there’s a good chance it would lose in court.

The rumoured reason the Scottish Government is pursuing this convoluted “General Referendums Bill” approach at the moment is to do with the Lord Advocate’s statement of competence at the introduction of a bill. I understand James Wolff feels unable to say honestly and publicly that he thinks an Independence Referendum Bill would be within competence without a section 30 Order. It would be embarrassing if he very publicly couldn’t give that reassurance and in the current climate the legislation would almost certainly be referred, at which point either he or his successor would have to defend a legal position he had very publicly had difficulties sustaining.

2. All other things being equal, it’s helpful to have the UK Government providing some form of political consent for a referendum taking place on a shared plan for its basic terms and conditions. Although the Edinburgh’s Agreement and related documents provided no legal guarantee a Yes vote would be respected it’s politically much harder to refuse to implement a referendum you yourself gave your blessing to happen.

This is why the Canadian Federal Parliament has been so keen to avoid ever politically endorsing a referendum in Quebec and why it has even tried to use legislation (the Clarity Act) to prohibit the federal government from taking any steps to honour the result if it concludes the result was too close or the question wasn’t clear enough.

[Tibbermoresaint]

12 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Two reasons.

1. BaxterParp legal supremo is, probably, wrong. Although an argument might be made that an independence referendum would be within the competence of Holyrood or the functions of Bute House, it’s not a strong one and there’s a good chance it would lose in court.

The rumoured reason the Scottish Government is pursuing this convoluted “General Referendums Bill” approach at the moment is to do with the Lord Advocate’s statement of competence at the introduction of a bill. I understand James Wolff feels unable to say honestly and publicly that he thinks an Independence Referendum Bill would be within competence without a section 30 Order. It would be embarrassing if he very publicly couldn’t give that reassurance and in the current climate the legislation would almost certainly be referred, at which point either he or his successor would have to defend a legal position he had very publicly had difficulties sustaining.

2. All other things being equal, it’s helpful to have the UK Government providing some form of political consent for a referendum taking place on a shared plan for its basic terms and conditions. Although the Edinburgh’s Agreement and related documents provided no legal guarantee a Yes vote would be respected it’s politically much harder to refuse to implement a referendum you yourself gave your blessing to happen.

This is why the Canadian Federal Parliament has been so keen to avoid ever politically endorsing a referendum in Quebec and why it has even tried to use legislation (the Clarity Act) to prohibit the federal government from taking any steps to honour the result if it concludes the result was too close or the question wasn’t clear enough.

And yet nobody doubts that when Quebec votes for independence, with or without the blessing of Ottawa, Quebec will become independent.

[Kuro]

9 hours 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.

WMs 'permission ' should be a formality given the people of Scotland VOTED for a referendum in this parliament in these exact circumstances.  It's completely anti democratic and possibly illegal for them to block it.  You yoons really are utterly craven, look at you barely able to conceal your glee at Scotland's democratic wishes being ignored.  Pathetic.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Kuro

[Ad Lib]

32 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

And yet nobody doubts that when Quebec votes for independence, with or without the blessing of Ottawa, Quebec will become independent.

Plenty of people doubt it.

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, Ad Lib said:

Plenty of people doubt it.

plausible.

[Ad Lib]

2 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

plausible.

On a scale of Belgian Congo to William Wallace, how independent is Catalonia after its two independence votes champ?

[Baxter Parp]

Two reasons.
1. BaxterParp legal supremo is, probably, wrong

f**k off, c**t.

https://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, Ad Lib said:

On a scale of Belgian Congo to William Wallace, how independent is Catalonia after its two independence votes champ?

Why not ask the same question of Slovenia or Estonia, champ?

[Ad Lib]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

 

 

f**k off, c**t.

https://www.parliament.scot/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx

 

The Scottish Parliament’s website famously being the determinant of what is and is not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

We are expected to ignore, in the Parp Constitution, the actual Scotland Act and the two decades of judicial precedent interpreting its key provisions.

[renton]

4 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

On a scale of Belgian Congo to William Wallace, how independent is Catalonia after its two independence votes champ?

History plays a role of course. There are no straight comparisons. The Spanish state isn't the UK.

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Why not ask the same question of Slovenia or Estonia, champ?

Now I wonder, which scenario is more comparable and relevant... a modern democratic Western state in which the right to secede for constituent parts is contested or ambiguous, or a breakaway from a disintegrating colonial soviet federation formed by conquest?

[Baxter Parp]

Then why did Salmond bother with the Edinburgh Agreement then?

So that it couldnt be opposed in the courts by some arrogant smirking p***k like Ad-Lib.