Jump to content

When will indyref2 happen?


Colkitto

Indyref2  

783 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

33 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Scotland is the only nation in the world that is forced to allow religious leaders of a foreign denomination political control over it's affairs.

That was the finely balanced quid pro quo that the Scots and English commissioners of the Treaty of Union came up with and to which the Parliaments of Scotland and England gave their assent.

Scotland kept its legal system and its national Kirk.  England kept its bishops.

Seems pretty reasonable all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread will almost double in size when all the "there will never be another IndyRef!" posts get re-quoted.

It'll be pointless too, as the authors will all take a long sabbatical, like normal. Not a decent meltdown to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/06/2022 at 20:32, Duries Air Freshener said:

My belief is that Sturgeon’s being both controlled and protected.

It would explain the Murrells coming out of Salmondgate clean, Penfold looking relaxed at the inquiry as if he was reading off something, the injunction rumour, not chasing the supermajority, woman H not being done for perjury, Cherry being sidelined and NS never doing anything meaningful to achieve independence.

What’s the point in having intelligence services if they aren’t used when there’s a threat of part of the country breaking away?

I think she’s an incredible actress.

MI5 wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't used against pro Independence parties.  They done it in Northern Ireland and I would be very surprised if they haven't been at work in Scotland for many years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Kenneth840
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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...