When will indyref2 happen?

[Dawson Park Boy]

Thanks all. As a newbie here, quite enjoyed it but time for bed and book and tucking up nice and cosy under my Union Jack sheets.

See you all soon.

[Antlion]

14 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

 

EU heading in wrong direction.

Happy to be friends but not attached.

As is the UK. Nice to see you making the case for Scottish independence. 

[Antlion]

26 minutes ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

Genuinely interested to hear what it means for you.

Unrelieved and unchecked racism and bigotry have been promised by Brexit. What wouldn’t a British nationalist love about that?

[Baxter Parp]

3 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

No it really doesn’t. Quote me the relevant passage of the Union with England Act or retract your falsehood.

That the Court of Session, or College of Justice, do, after the Union, and
notwithstanding thereof, remain, in all time coming, within Scotland, as it is now constituted
by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Privileges, as before the
Union

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

That the Court of Session, or College of Justice, do, after the Union, and
notwithstanding thereof, remain, in all time coming, within Scotland, as it is now constituted
by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Privileges, as before the
Union

That is still the case. The existence of the Supreme Court (and for that matter, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council whose functions preceded it) are not a breach of that provision.

[Baxter Parp]

1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Well, for starters, they are now arguing it’s a country and needs an ambassador to the UK,

The UK is arguing that the EU is an organisation therefore Brexit was never about sovereignty.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Baxter Parp

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, Ad Lib said:

That is still the case. The existence of the Supreme Court (and for that matter, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council whose functions preceded it) are not a breach of that provision.

The highest court of Scotland is not within Scotland.

[Ad Lib]

2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

The highest court of Scotland is not within Scotland.

For criminal matters it is.

The Acts of Union don’t require the Court of Session to be the highest court for civil matters in Scotland. They merely require that there isn’t a right of appeal against the decisions of the Court of Session to an English court, or as the Acts put it:

“that no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas or any other Court in Westminster-hall And that the said Courts or any other of the like nature after the Unions shall have no power to Cognosce Review or Alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland or stop the Execution of the same”

Neither the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, nor the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, nor indeed the UK Supreme Court satisfy that description of an English court.

[Baxter Parp]

2 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

For criminal matters it is.

The Acts of Union don’t require the Court of Session to be the highest court for civil matters in Scotland. They merely require that there isn’t a right of appeal against the decisions of the Court of Session to an English court, or as the Acts put it:

“that no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas or any other Court in Westminster-hall And that the said Courts or any other of the like nature after the Unions shall have no power to Cognosce Review or Alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland or stop the Execution of the same”

Neither the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, nor the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, nor indeed the UK Supreme Court satisfy that description of an English court.

It doesn't even mention England you little liar. Any other court should not be able to "Review or Alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland or stop the Execution of the same".

[Baxter Parp]

Former President of Estonia, there.  

[Ad Lib]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

It doesn't even mention England you little liar. Any other court should not be able to "Review or Alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland or stop the Execution of the same".

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

The bit you’ve just quoted is about the High Court of Justiciary (for criminal matters).

What that says is that you can’t have another court review or alter the acts or sentences of the High Court.

The UK Supreme Court can’t review or alter the acts or sentences of the High Court.

The UK Supreme Court can only determine devolution issues and hear Inner House of the Court of Session appeals.

Article XIX doesn’t prohibit appeals on civil matters to the UK Supreme Court, nor did it prohibit appeals to its predecessor jurisdictions.

It only prohibited “Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas or any other Court in Westminster-hall” from reviewing decisions of the Court of Session. Those are all English courts.

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, Ad Lib said:

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

The bit you’ve just quoted is about the High Court of Justiciary (for criminal matters).

What that says is that you can’t have another court review or alter the acts or sentences of the High Court.

The UK Supreme Court can’t review or alter the acts or sentences of the High Court.

The UK Supreme Court can only determine devolution issues and hear Inner House of the Court of Session appeals.

Article XIX doesn’t prohibit appeals on civil matters to the UK Supreme Court, nor did it prohibit appeals to its predecessor jurisdictions.

It only prohibited “Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas or any other Court in Westminster-hall” from reviewing decisions of the Court of Session. Those are all English courts.

 "And that the said Courts or any other of the like nature after the Unions"

Oh dear oh dear oh dear indeed.

[Ad Lib]

4 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

 "And that the said Courts or any other of the like nature after the Unions"

Oh dear oh dear oh dear indeed.

Literally read the full fucking sentence.

The reference to “any other of the like nature” means that if, for example, the Court of Chancery is renamed or restructured, its successor body cannot review the acts and sentences of the High Court of Justiciary.

Once again, for emphasis: the UK Supreme Court:

(a) is not a court “of like nature” of the listed courts

and more importantly

(b) cannot review the acts or sentences of the High Court of Justiciary.

You are, simply put, completely and utterly wrong.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Ad Lib

[Baxter Parp]

2 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Literally read the full fucking sentence.

The reference to “any other of the like nature” means that if, for example, the Court of Chancery is renamed or restructured, it’s successor body cannot review the acts and sentences of the High Court of Justiciary.

Once again, for emphasis: the UK Supreme Court:

(a) is not a court “of like nature” of the listed courts

and more importantly

(b) cannot review the acts or sentences of the High Court of Justiciary.

You are, simply put, completely and utterly wrong.

"The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was established by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and is the highest court in the United Kingdom for civil cases and those matters relating to human rights and devolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justiciary#Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom_2

As with all your arguments you're dancing on the head of a pin and hoping that everybody's dumber than you are.

It's a court of a "like nature" because it's a fucking court.

[Ad Lib]

7 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

"The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was established by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and is the highest court in the United Kingdom for civil cases and those matters relating to human rights and devolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justiciary#Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom_2

As with all your arguments you're dancing on the head of a pin and hoping that everybody's dumber than you are.

It's a court of a "like nature" because it's a fucking court.

The devolution jurisdiction of the UK Supreme Court doesn’t enable it to quash acts and sentences of the High Court of Justiciary. QED.

The phrase “court of a like nature” doesn’t just mean “any court”. It refers specifically to the listed types of Court that existed in 1707 in England, and any successor or equivalent jurisdictions that may come into existence subsequently to that.

Once more, and with emphasis: the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the UK Supreme Court were/are not courts of a like nature to those listed in Article XIX.

Because unlike those listed courts they aren’t English courts.

You are talking shite.

[Baxter Parp]

2 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The devolution jurisdiction of the UK Supreme Court doesn’t enable it to quash acts and sentences of the High Court of Justiciary. QED.

The phrase “court of a like nature” doesn’t just mean “any court”. It refers specifically to the listed types of Court that existed in 1707 in England, and any successor or equivalent jurisdictions that may come into existence subsequently to that.

Once more, and with emphasis: the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the UK Supreme Court were/are not courts of a like nature to those listed in Article XIX.

Because unlike those listed courts they aren’t English courts.

You are talking shite.

This is just too deluded to deal with.

[magic sign]

Actually, indyref2, as a diehard unionist, I say ‘bring it on’.
The case for is just so weak that, once all the facts and figures are out in the open, I think it will be a resounding NO.
Most of the folks I know who vote SNP do so because they believe that independence will bring ‘a land of milk and honey’.
How wrong can you be.
I voted Brexit out of conviction and prepared myself to be worse off by around 10%. As it happens, I don’t think that will happen but I am ready for it. To be free from the EU, for me, means a lot more than financial prosperity.
However, most of my SNP friends don’t feel that way and my guess is that their heads will overrule their hearts.
Just a few questions for starters
currency
Gers figures are terrible
No more Barnett consequentials
Cut off from the RUK where 60% of our exports go.
Just like regions of England, no more subsidies from London and the South East.(Barnett, basically)
Poor education system
Very few entrepreneurial businesses
Very high public sector
Poor outlook as stated by Andrew Wilson’s growth commission.
So many more but I won’t waste my time

If we are using Brexit as a barometer, are we allowed to reply to these questions with outright lies like "GATT Article 24", similar to the way Farage, Reese-Mogg and Johnson have?

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1147458/gatt-24-what-is-gatt-24-wto-article-farage-rees-mogg-boris-johnson-no-deal-brexit/amp

[Ad Lib]

38 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Yes you’re right Ad Lib. I Baxter Parp am an idiot.

Fixed that for you

[Baxter Parp]

8 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Fixed that for you

You haven't changed a bit.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Baxter Parp

[Guest TheJTS98]

4 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I was wondering why it would be in rUK's interests to cut itself off from our trade? I'm sure we wouldn't be so mean as to consider such a thing.

Long term, of course they wouldn't. But this is the crux of one of the great unspoken dangers of independence.

Before people pile in, I'm pro-independence and have voted almost exclusively for pro-independence parties in my entire adult life.

However, nobody ever talks about the reality of our future relationship with England. Not rUK - the others parts are irrelevant to this historically; to England.

The first part to this is that there is no mainstream English political party that is in favour of Scottish independence. The Tories long had a Euro-sceptic wing with power in the party. They don't have a public Scottish-sceptic wing, for example. The reason for this is clearly that the UK parties are aware of the economic importance of Scotland to the UK as a whole, and the issue of presitge.

If/When Scotland becomes independent, the economic issue won't really change. England will still seek to benefit economically from the resources of the island it dominates. Not a criticism, any country would.

This puts Scotland in a not-dissimilar position to Poland in that its geography means that its independence will be a relatively precarious thing long-term. Poland's sensible governments - not like the crack-pots they have in charge now - have responded to this by trying to hug Germany very tightly to keep them off their back and to give protection from the other historical geographical problem, Russia. Long-term (and states think long-term), I think Poland is fucked in this endeavour.

Scotland can't really play England off against anyone else. And England will play the long game economically to seek eventual control of the island, its resources, and the prestige of controlling its land. Not to mention the issue of controlling sea territory, GIUK gap etc.

For this reason, we're going to have to be very clever about trade. And the long-term security of Scottish independence is going to rely not only on membership of international organisations and alliances, but on making ourselves economically open to England in ways that we probably wouldn't ideally. There'll be a big trade-off involved to buy our security.

I think it's worth it. But it's something we need to talk about.

Edited January 25, 2021 by TheJTS98