When will indyref2 happen?

[Kenneth840]

On 19/06/2022 at 10:31, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Not this pish again,

In the even of UDI, no one will recognize us, no access to the UN, no diplomatic relations with other countries, Scottish passports not accepted for travel, no access to the IMF. In the real world of international relations, you're not a country just because you say you are, only if others agree that you are, which is why places like the Palestinian territory's or northern Cyprus are not real countries despite their governments claim that they are .  The UK government would continue to claim to be the legitimate sovereign state, would most likely dissolve the Scottish parliament. Even if the Scottish government tried to ignore this and continued to meet in their own capacity, they would have no way of governing, the UK treasury would control all of the money, the MOD would control all the territory including sea and airspace.

UDI is a hiding to nothing

Either have an armed confilct and force the UK to sign a peace deal giving us recognition or accept that we can only vote to leave when they let us

UDI = Unilateral Declaration of Independence. 

What else is Independence but a Declaration of it Unilaterally?  

And we have no control over whether we are recognised or not.  That is up to the individual sovereign nations to decide. 

[Kenneth840]

2 hours ago, Zern said:

It's not happening. Specifically not happening in 2023. More specifically not in October 2023. The budget for the campaign? That not happenin... actually that happened. Fair play. But that doesn't matter. Because Scottish laws are mickey mouse laws or something. That announcement last week that definitely didn't happen or did it? With or without, absolutely 100% cannot happen. And if it does, that's just smokescreen or something. She's a unionist really.

It's all a wheeze!

Next week we'll get more details in the Scottish Parliament. If it happens. Which it will.

 

I think most people are saying there won't be a referendum held that will lead to Scotland becoming Independent (I know I am) there's a big difference between a properly held referendum that will result in Scotland leaving the UK and what I fear to be a pretenderendum.

Although I do believe a pretenderendum could have it's uses.  If the results of it are massive, say 60% of the electorate vote Yes, even with Unionist boycotting it then that could be used to show the UN that Scotland is trapped and has no democratic means of restoring it's Independence. But the pretenderendum would have to go ahead in the first place, the Unionist councils would be well within their rights not to hold it in the first place.  See section 29 Scotland act 1998.

Quote

29Legislative competence.

(1)An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.

(2)A provision is outside that competence so far as any of the following paragraphs apply—

(a)it would form part of the law of a country or territory other than Scotland, or confer or remove functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland,

(b)it relates to reserved matters,

(c)it is in breach of the restrictions in Schedule 4,

(d)it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights F1...,

(e)it would remove the Lord Advocate from his position as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland.

(3)For the purposes of this section, the question whether a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament relates to a reserved matter is to be determined, subject to subsection (4), by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances.

(4)A provision which—

(a)would otherwise not relate to reserved matters, but

(b)makes modifications of Scots private law, or Scots criminal law, as it applies to reserved matters,

is to be treated as relating to reserved matters unless the purpose of the provision is to make the law in question apply consistently to reserved matters and otherwise.

 

[Zern]

1 hour ago, Kenneth840 said:

I think most people are saying there won't be a referendum held that will lead to Scotland becoming Independent (I know I am) there's a big difference between a properly held referendum that will result in Scotland leaving the UK and what I fear to be a pretenderendum.

Although I do believe a pretenderendum could have it's uses.  If the results of it are massive, say 60% of the electorate vote Yes, even with Unionist boycotting it then that could be used to show the UN that Scotland is trapped and has no democratic means of restoring it's Independence. But the pretenderendum would have to go ahead in the first place, the Unionist councils would be well within their rights not to hold it in the first place.  See section 29 Scotland act 1998.

 

You are only really pointing to the difference between a referendum with a section 30 to make the result legally binding, and a referendum absent the legal obligations of a section 30. Both would be legal although only the former has any legal obligation and the so-called "unionist councils" would be bound to hold both.

[Kenneth840]

1 hour ago, Zern said:

You are only really pointing to the difference between a referendum with a section 30 to make the result legally binding, and a referendum absent the legal obligations of a section 30. Both would be legal although only the former has any legal obligation and the so-called "unionist councils" would be bound to hold both.

Please tell me where either way would be legal.  Please show me this.

It is political. From being political we can make it law (legal).

ETA

The so called Unionist councils created by the Snp would not be bound to do any of it. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Kenneth840

[BFTD]

There won't be a referendum held that will see Scotland become independent, and only 60% of people would vote for independence if the unionists boycotted it. Also going from blind insistence that the rest of the world will back us, to "we have no control over whether we are recognised or not.  That is up to the individual sovereign nations to decide".

One boy's wild journey into the abyss.

[Zern]

1 hour ago, Kenneth840 said:

Please tell me where either way would be legal.  Please show me this.

It is political. From being political we can make it law (legal).

ETA

The so called Unionist councils created by the Snp would not be bound to do any of it. 

You understand that legality differs from legal obligations? The Brexit vote was a referendum without any legal obligations set for the outcome. So it is legal, but not legally binding.

The Edinburgh Agreement is an example of a referendum that contained legal obligations in the event of a majority Yes vote, the obligation to negotiate secession. So it was legal and legally binding.

Legislation that passes through the Scottish Parliament to hold an advisory referendum, would be legal but not legally binding. The legal status means that the councils would be bound to hold the referendum, regardless of their personal opinions on the matter.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

 

[The_Kincardine]

19 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

I assume you forgot to add.....in the early 18th century

Not at all.  The AoU has stood us well over centuries - as much to the benefit of Scotland as anyone.

[The_Kincardine]

8 hours ago, Zern said:

It's all a wheeze!

I had some sympathy for the 1970s iteration of ScotchNattery.  They were passionate, articulate and cant-free.  They tended toward, 'liking Scotland in its own terms'. and gained my respect.

The 2020's version are the polar-opposite:  A shower of nasty, bitter, barely-competent chanty-wrastlers whose eye is on the main chance for self- aggrandisement.

So yes.  For the modern Nat politicians it is all a wheeze.  Until the neds, boors and Shinners in their support find them out.

[Zern]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

I had some sympathy for the 1970s iteration of ScotchNattery.  They were passionate, articulate and cant-free.  They tended toward, 'liking Scotland in its own terms'. and gained my respect.

The 2020's version are the polar-opposite:  A shower of nasty, bitter, barely-competent chanty-wrastlers whose eye is on the main chance for self- aggrandisement.

So yes.  For the modern Nat politicians it is all a wheeze.  Until the neds, boors and Shinners in their support find them out.

I'm not convinced you had any more respect for previous SNP representatives as today's, your overall rhetoric and demeanour suggests the exact opposite.

We have several possible outcomes:

1. Indyref 2 with UK Gov agreement, replicating the previous indy ref

2. Indyref 2 without UK agreement, but ruled legal through court, also replicates previous ref

3. Indyref 2 get ruled illegal

I don't doubt that those who are in favour of indy will turn out in any event of a referendum (1 or 2) whereas it seems that in option 2 we have the "wildcat" referendum where it is opposed by Tory Gov, but we could see support of the legal ruling by Labour and Lib Dems. That present a problem for unionists as there is already a split between boycott and participate. I don't think they would have the numbers to do both and win.

[GTee]

Voting against you're country's independence is baffling. Probably more than 99,% of countries on the planet are independent. Seems like the norm.. We would get on great and work together. Probably noone would notice much of a difference.

[sparky88]

A wildcat referendum would be like Christmas for unionism. 

[sparky88]

6 hours ago, GTee said:

Voting against you're country's independence is baffling. Probably more than 99,% of countries on the planet are independent. Seems like the norm.. We would get on great and work together. Probably noone would notice much of a difference.

What's a country?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

9 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Until the neds, boors and Shinners in their support find them out.

I'm surprised you didn't just say "bead-rattlers" and be done with it, you pathetic old bigot.

[Dawson Park Boy]

8 hours ago, GTee said:

Voting against you're country's independence is baffling. Probably more than 99,% of countries on the planet are independent. Seems like the norm.. We would get on great and work together. Probably noone would notice much of a difference.

Problem with that is - we are already independent as one nation - the UK, Great Britain. That’s my independent country.and was voted for decisively in 2014.

End of.

[Kenneth840]

14 hours ago, Zern said:

You understand that legality differs from legal obligations? The Brexit vote was a referendum without any legal obligations set for the outcome. So it is legal, but not legally binding.

The Edinburgh Agreement is an example of a referendum that contained legal obligations in the event of a majority Yes vote, the obligation to negotiate secession. So it was legal and legally binding.

Legislation that passes through the Scottish Parliament to hold an advisory referendum, would be legal but not legally binding. The legal status means that the councils would be bound to hold the referendum, regardless of their personal opinions on the matter.

As I stated previously, I think Unionist councils will just use section 29 of the Scotland act to refuse to hold the Independence referendum stating that the Union is a reserved matter.  

On a related point, do you know why the Referendum (Scotland) act overview explains that the act will allow Scotland to hold referendums on devolved matters?  Yet when I read the act itself, I could find no mention of it only being for devolved matters.

Quote

The Bill would only allow for referendums on issues which the Scottish Parliament has responsibility for. These are known as a ‘devolved’ matters.

 

[git-intae-thum]

2 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Problem with that is - we are already independent as one nation - the UK, Great Britain. That’s my independent country.and was voted for decisively in 2014.

End of.

the fight against progress and democracy continues.

[GiGi]

15 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I had some sympathy for the 1970s iteration of ScotchNattery.  They were passionate, articulate and cant-free.  They tended toward, 'liking Scotland in its own terms'. and gained my respect.

The 2020's version are the polar-opposite:  A shower of nasty, bitter, barely-competent chanty-wrastlers whose eye is on the main chance for self- aggrandisement.

So yes.  For the modern Nat politicians it is all a wheeze.  Until the neds, boors and Shinners in their support find them out.

Brilliant. You're the most nasty, bitter person on this forum, constantly frothing at the mouth at the notion of self determination. It's been funny watching you unravel in the last couple of weeks.

[Zern]

2 hours ago, Kenneth840 said:

As I stated previously, I think Unionist councils will just use section 29 of the Scotland act to refuse to hold the Independence referendum stating that the Union is a reserved matter. 

They do not possess the authority to rule on that. If it is ruled legal its legal. They would be the ones who committing an offense.

Quote

On a related point, do you know why the Referendum (Scotland) act overview explains that the act will allow Scotland to hold referendums on devolved matters?  Yet when I read the act itself, I could find no mention of it only being for devolved matters.

I do not know why, if i where to hazard a guess it would be that the law is written under the assumption that any referendum would be on matters solely within Scotland.

[Big Rider]

4 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Problem with that is - we are already independent as one nation - the UK, Great Britain. That’s my independent country.and was voted for decisively in 2014.

End of.

The UK and Great Britain are not the same and are therefore not one nation.