When will indyref2 happen?

[lichtgilphead]

3 hours ago, BudBudBud said:

Anyway, the original point I made was that people feel an emotional attachment to Britain.  Whether it's a country or not (IT IS!  )

Didn't a previous poster continually confuse "Britain" with "the UK"? If BBB wants to be taken seriously, he should research the difference. Britain is most derinitely not a country.

8 minutes ago, Jedi said:

So could still turn out to be 'advisory', and not self-executing then.

Hasn't every referendum held in the UK been advisory only?

[Rod1877]

13 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I missed the first comment.

Lord Stewart of Dirleton (as the Advocate General of Scotland) presented written evidence 2 days ago. The Mail were all over it yesterday.

You can imagine how they reported it.

I haven't seen any of the presentations as I'm on holiday. At the end of the day the judgement will be based on the actual content of the written and oral submissions and not their actual presentation - this isn’t an American TV law court.

 

It's fairly obvious that the exchange was about oral presentation of the case in court and nothing to do with written submissions or Daily Mail reporting.

Even if you did miss the original post and its commentary on the Lord Advocate's performance, it's very difficult to see why you would think that the post you actually replied to was referring to earlier written submissions by the Advocate General.  You replied ...

18 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

If you are talking about the Advocate General for Scotland - that's actually an appointment of HM Government.

... in response to this ...

19 hours ago, Jedi said:

Looks like they might as well have put Donald Findlay in, to argue the SG case at the Supreme Court.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Quite easy - I was questioning whether he'd seen SG evidence or other evidence - he didn't mention Bain or anyone else not even their gender.

At that point the only reports I'd seen here in Kos related to evidence presented by Lord Stewart of Dirleton KC.

I also would question whether Jedi has actually seen Bain's evidence given that since then I've seen a report from an unbiased source of the events not Craig Murray's "this is what I think happened" version of events - someone is fibbing somewhat here.

And given Murray's previous conviction for contempt of court I know who I don't believe.

I've read both sides - it's fairly clear why Bain believes she is not in a position to make a decision but I also get the argument being made by HM Government that a decision does not need to be made at this point. What we haven't seen yet (although it may have been presented in written evidence) is any argument against a referendum being ultra vires.

I think we also need to be careful here with the focus on oral evidence. As the Supreme Court President Lord Reed noted, the arguments heard in court were "the tip of the iceberg", with thousands of pages of written material to wade through.

We could be in the odd situation where the Supreme Court agrees that Bain is not in a position to rule but that a decision does not need to be made yet and should be kicked down the road and they therefore won't rule on ultra vires yet.

If that is the result then you'd expect there would be a rush of backbench SNP MSPs prepared to bring forward a member's bill on an independence referendum - this would not require Bain's sign off but go back to the Supreme Court.

This could drag on for some time.

[SandyCromarty]

10 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Didn't a previous poster continually confuse "Britain" with "the UK"? If BBB wants to be taken seriously, he should research the difference. Britain is most derinitely not a country.

I would certainly agree with you , there are so many variations of this Britain tag which evolved into the United Kingdom tag.

The 1707 Act of Union however was ratified as The Kingdom of Great Britain, which to me is a grandiose empirical term awarded as england stretched it's self importance on trade and eventually an empire. As I recall The United Kingdom term came into being in the early 1800's when Ireland was commandeered  by westminster.

As long as Scotland maintain's the two main areas of a sovereign state Law and Church, and until recently, Banking, Scotland remain's a Sovereign State within a UK/Britain framework. 

We have our own clearly defined culture and england has Morris Dancing.

 

[Guest Jedi]

Think it will go on for some time. A ruling 'by the end of this year' has been reported, but that appearsquite ambitious, with the written submissions from both sides. Could be into next year.

Presumably if the Coury rules in favour of Westminster there would be an appeal by the SG..more months.

Or the outcome as suggested..SG has the competence to hold an advisory Ref but with a time scale 'recommended' which could push it back beyond the next GE

Edited October 14, 2022 by Jedi

[SandyCromarty]

3 hours ago, BudBudBud said:

 

'Britain' and 'United Kingdom' are used interchangeably on a regular basis, hence the presence of 'British Citizen' on our passports.

There are various interpretations of what constitutes a country, and they include having defined citizens, defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.  Different Churches and law systems don't seem to come into it.

And that defines Scotland.

The Law/Legislature is an essential part of the State.

[Kenneth840]

On 08/10/2022 at 18:52, Dawson Park Boy said:

Kenneth- you seem to be the only one on here who truly wants independence.

The rest much prefer slagging off the toaries.

 

Its the go to response.  Whataboutery.  "Its not our fault its the tories." 

Yes is it your fault.  2015 we had 56/59 Mps at westminster.  We could have done a hell of a lot better than asking a uk court whether the sovereign people of Scotland can hold a referendum.  It is more time wasting. 

[Clown Job]

Looking forward to hearing the economic case for the union, cause the way things are I don’t think the UK can afford to be independent 

[Kenneth840]

On 13/10/2022 at 12:23, Jedi said:

Interesting to see that Dorothy Bain herself, doesn't appear to believe in her own arguments, or indeed in the 'competence' of the Scottish govt to hold a Referendum at present...Some quotes from her this week:

1) “I could not clear the bill as appended. I do not have the necessary confidence that the bill is within the competence of the Scottish parliament”
2) “A referendum on a matter which is ultra vires, is also ultra vires” (so beyond the powers of the Scottish parliament then, in Bain's own opinion)
3) “It is a peculiarity that the Scotland Act refers to the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Those states no longer exist, having been replaced by the United Kingdom”…(two hours later) “Nothing turns on the peculiarity. The union is a full political and economic union between what were two previously independent countries.”
4) “There is clearly a cogent argument that the Scottish Parliament does not have the competence to pass this bill”

Don't see the Supreme Court route ending well when the SNP's own appointed lawyer doesn't actually believe that the case should or could win.

At least appoint a person that can fight the case. FFS

[Kenneth840]

On 13/10/2022 at 14:12, Jedi said:

As Robin McAlpine points out, during the (proposed) transition from using sterling, to setting up a Scottish Central Bank and issuing Scottish currency (however long that takes), the SG would have to cover any funding gap from taxation. This is because any funds which are in the Central Bank (while it is using sterling but building up reserves), would quite quickly be swallowed up on public spending (all of health, education, and yes, penshuunns et al). Once the Central Bank funds have been depleted the gap in resources would have to be covered by taxation.....possible, but clearly taxes would have to go up.

Once the Scottish currency comes on-line, it has to build up a respectable image to be floated on international markets, establish an exchange rate etc. That is more difficult to do if taxation has had to be pushed up.

So.....much better option would be to have a Scottish currency ready to run from day 1 of Independence. This is definitely manageable, given that there would probably be a 2-3 year period of negotiations following a Yes vote.....but 'only' if the SNP drop their idea to continue using sterling in the first instance. 

Sterlingisation will be a disaster for an Independent Scotland. We need our own currency on day 1.

But try explaining that to thickos. 

[Kenneth840]

On 13/10/2022 at 15:28, SandyCromarty said:

And why not, it certainly would be better tied to the third biggest worlds economy currency than to a failing pound.

Fact is to join the EU the present Scottish National Investment Bank, (set up two years ago by the SNP), would become the Scottish Central Bank and then Scotland would move forward to satisfy The Copenhagen Criteria for joining, and yes in the interim we would adopt a pound based currency as had Ireand prior to joining the EU.

It's all tres simple though the unionists will come up with their usual shite which is best ignored as they know that Independence will happen.

Thing is because of the idiotic chaos caused by the little englanders empirical rule brittania brexit the EU will welcome us with open arms, leaving england to enjoy the fantastic trade deals they say they have made since brexit and which in reality have never happened and now businesses are failing dramatically.

The UK is in a financial abyss and facing ruin thanks to a corrupt and incompetent westminster government.

Has the Scottish National Investment Bank been set up in the way you say it is though, as a future Scottish Central bank? 

[Kenneth840]

On 13/10/2022 at 15:49, williemillersmoustache said:

Cannot. Fucking. Wait. To sell Faslane to France (or Iran) for 500bn euro. 

You are a problem.  Why the f**k would you want to do that?  

Take your arse out of your head and breath. 

[Kenneth840]

20 hours ago, renton said:

Craig Murray is a fucking moon howler. This is, according to Andrew Tickell (an actual lawyer) the jist of it:

 

Where is your evidence that Craig Murray is a moon howler? It is not in that article you quoted.  

Edited October 14, 2022 by Kenneth840
Spelling

[Kenneth840]

19 hours ago, renton said:

Aye, so was the 2014 referendum. So was the 2016 Brexit referendum. They are all advisory. 

The difference is that our First Minister, Nicola, has already said it will have no effect.  That is the argument that is being made. 

[welshbairn]

23 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:

Sterlingisation will be a disaster for an Independent Scotland. We need our own currency on day 1.

But try explaining that to thickos. 

That must be your life's struggle, stay strong.

[Kenneth840]

8 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

I would certainly agree with you , there are so many variations of this Britain tag which evolved into the United Kingdom tag.

The 1707 Act of Union however was ratified as The Kingdom of Great Britain, which to me is a grandiose empirical term awarded as england stretched it's self importance on trade and eventually an empire. As I recall The United Kingdom term came into being in the early 1800's when Ireland was commandeered  by westminster.

As long as Scotland maintain's the two main areas of a sovereign state Law and Church, and until recently, Banking, Scotland remain's a Sovereign State within a UK/Britain framework. 

We have our own clearly defined culture and england has Morris Dancing.

 

We need to get away from domestic law, move to international law.

But more importantly, assert this as political, not legal. 

[BFTD]

12 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:

You are a problem.  Why the f**k would you want to do that?  

Take your arse out of your head and breath. 

Yasss, was thinking it was about time for Kenneth's weekly hour on the computer!

[Brother Blades]

2 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:

Where is your evidence that Craig Murray is a mon howler? It is not in that article you quoted.  

11 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:

Blah, blah, blah, UDI, blah blah blah, Sturgeon, blah, war, blah, yer da. 

 

[The Skelpit Lug]

4 minutes ago, Carly Rae Jepsen said:

Hey you crazy scotch, Carly here, I think that of you guys really want independence then you should call your Msp maybe? 

You're Talking to Yourself, Carly.

[SandyCromarty]

3 minutes ago, Kenneth840 said:

Has the Scottish National Investment Bank been set up in the way you say it is though, as a future Scottish Central bank? 

What other purpose other than a future Central Bank would it serve. Nothing has been mentioned obviously as to the Banks purpose, it is owned by The Scottish Ministers so there's a hint. 

'The Bank is wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers on behalf of the people of Scotland. It is a public limited company and has been established to operate commercially, and operationally independent from The Scottish Government'.

The party has been open in it's statement that on Independence one important step is to rejoin the EU, the steps required are clearly set up and outlined in the Copenhagen Criteria, part of that Criteria is that the country applying for membership must have a functioning market economy, with that it is obvious that we must have in place a transitionary currency and that will be a Scottish Pound  backed by the Scottish Central Bank.

That currency will be a temporary measure until we are accepted into the EU and we adopt the Euro, bear in mind that Lithuania and Latvia broke away from the Russian Rouble and set up the Litas and Lats currencies respectively as part of their Copenhagen Criteria EU application, both now have the Euro as their official currency.