When will indyref2 happen?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

We already have a mandate to hold a referendum, if they refuse a section 30 then hold the referendum anyway.  Make big shouts to the EU and United Nations that we no longer recognise westminster's authority and we are holding an Independence referendum.  The westminster parliament already acknowledges Scotland's sovereignty and as such they must respect the result.  (Brexit = change of circumstances btw) If westminster refuses to accept the Yes vote, then we must keep returning mp's to westminster and disrupt parliament until it recognises that we are better left alone. 

We will keep on fighting until we get westminster to recognise our right to Independence by doing whatever it takes.  

 

 

We saw how that went in Catalonia. 

 

 

The response is to go baws oot for IndyRef2 at the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021 - or sooner if there were an emergency Scottish Election caused by Sturgeon resigning as FM and a new FM not being agreed.

 

 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

We shouldn't use the example of Spain's reaction, which will be described as tyrannical by historians, as a reason not to do things. I happen to still think a wildcat ref isn't the way to go, but not because riot police might beat me up and jail SNP leadership.

I meant more the response by other nations.

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

We saw how that went in Catalonia. 

 

 

The response is to go baws oot for IndyRef2 at the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021 - or sooner if there were an emergency Scottish Election caused by Sturgeon resigning as FM and a new FM not being agreed.

 

 

 

Best chance would be boycotting Westminster under a minority Labour Government until they sign Section 30. 

[git-intae-thum]

The passage of the SNP's new referendum bill looks interesting. It would appear it has been carefully crafted so that none of the wording can be disputed by Westminster as contravening reserved powers.

The result could be that any UK legal opposition to a future referendum on independence, organised by Holyrood, would not automatically go to the UKSC for arbitration, but instead would be heard under the jurisdiction of Scots Law.

The significance being that a Scots court would likely be far more knowledgeable (and sympathetic) to the notion of sovereignty of the people and the claim of right.

[Crùbag]

Very, very nifty footwork on the 'referendums bill' by Scot Gov. Well done them.

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/the-cleverness-of-the-referendum-bill/

Quote

 

That’s a clever piece of legislative sleight of hand, but it’s not the really clever bit. The really clever bit is that having established a general framework for the holding of referendums the bill authorises Scottish ministers to proceed with a referendum subject only to a majority vote in Holyrood. That’s significant because decisions by Scottish ministers which Westminster objects to are not liable to immediate transferral to the UK Supreme Court. Objections to ministerial decisions have to be dealt with by the Scottish courts and make their way through the Scottish legal system.

This bill does not negate the need for a Section 30 order for Scotland to have an independence referendum which can’t be legally challenged by the anti-independence parties, but crucially it makes a legal challenge by the Westminster Government far more difficult. The anti-independence parties can no longer rely upon an immediate referral to the UK Supreme Court, now they will have to go all the way through the Scottish legal process. We saw with the ruling on the revocation of Article 50 that the Scottish courts are less likely to automatically rule in favour of Westminster than the UK Supreme Court is. And just as it did during that particular case, if a Scottish court found against the British Government, it is not impossible that it could refuse to allow the British Government to take the matter further to the UK Supreme Court.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Crùbag

[edinabear]

2 hours ago, Crùbag said:

Very, very nifty footwork on the 'referendums bill' by Scot Gov. Well done them.

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/the-cleverness-of-the-referendum-bill/

 

Jesus, independence is inevitable with this level of intellect

[doulikefish]

Somebody has went "off" message

[Savage Henry]

Very, very nifty footwork on the 'referendums bill' by Scot Gov. Well done them.

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/the-cleverness-of-the-referendum-bill/

 

That’s a clever piece of legislative sleight of hand, but it’s not the really clever bit. The really clever bit is that having established a general framework for the holding of referendums the bill authorises Scottish ministers to proceed with a referendum subject only to a majority vote in Holyrood. That’s significant because decisions by Scottish ministers which Westminster objects to are not liable to immediate transferral to the UK Supreme Court. Objections to ministerial decisions have to be dealt with by the Scottish courts and make their way through the Scottish legal system.

This bill does not negate the need for a Section 30 order for Scotland to have an independence referendum which can’t be legally challenged by the anti-independence parties, but crucially it makes a legal challenge by the Westminster Government far more difficult. The anti-independence parties can no longer rely upon an immediate referral to the UK Supreme Court, now they will have to go all the way through the Scottish legal process. We saw with the ruling on the revocation of Article 50 that the Scottish courts are less likely to automatically rule in favour of Westminster than the UK Supreme Court is. And just as it did during that particular case, if a Scottish court found against the British Government, it is not impossible that it could refuse to allow the British Government to take the matter further to the UK Supreme Court.

 

 

 

 

Am I missing something? Why are the Scottish courts any more or less likely to “rule in favour of Westminster”? Is this not wishful thinking?

[lichtgilphead]

35 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

 

 

Am I missing something? Why are the Scottish courts any more or less likely to “rule in favour of Westminster”? Is this not wishful thinking?

Scots law recognises the sovereignty of the people. 

English law recognises the sovereignty of Parliament.

Quite an important distinction, and one that the Supreme Court should follow if ruling on matters pertaining to Scotland. 

[git-intae-thum]

2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Scots law recognises the sovereignty of the people. 

English law recognises the sovereignty of Parliament.

Quite an important distinction, and one that the Supreme Court should follow if ruling on matters pertaining to Scotland. 

This. The UKSC is a recent fabricant. It's an subversion of the act of union that it has been used to rule on Scottish matters.

[welshbairn]

4 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

 

 

 

Am I missing something? Why are the Scottish courts any more or less likely to “rule in favour of Westminster”? Is this not wishful thinking?

Seems to be an optimistic extrapolation of a single case.

Quote

We saw with the ruling on the revocation of Article 50 that the Scottish courts are less likely to automatically rule in favour of Westminster than the UK Supreme Court is.

 

[Savage Henry]

7 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

Does Scots law recognise 'sovereignty of the people'? I'm far from an expert but I'd be very surprised if that was true.

I tried looking this up, and, not knowing the proper search terms, absolutely everything pertaining to it came from Alt Nat sources.

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Seems to be an optimistic extrapolation of a single case.

 

This was what I thought too.  Irrespective of what "sovereignty of the people" means, what it does not mean is "whatever a minority of the populace vote for shall automatically be granted".

[Detournement]

The UK government is stonewalling the UN on Assange and the Chagos Islands.

They don't give a flying f**k about the law.

[lichtgilphead]

3 hours ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

Does Scots law recognise 'sovereignty of the people'? I'm far from an expert but I'd be very surprised if that was true.

 

3 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

I tried looking this up, and, not knowing the proper search terms, absolutely everything pertaining to it came from Alt Nat sources.

Ok, I'll cite my sources for my belief.

1) The Declaration of Arbroath

Although there is no definitive list of constitutional statutes, there are certain statutes that are significant in the history of the Constitution of the United Kingdom. The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath is routinely cited amongst these statutes.

The Declaration asserts that that the independence of Scotland is the prerogative of the Scottish people, rather than the King of Scots. It also states that we would choose someone else to be king if Bruce proved to be unfit in maintaining Scotland's independence.

2) MacCormick v Lord Advocate

The Lord President (Lord Cooper of Culross) stated ""the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law" 

Lord Cooper also stated "Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new parliament, I have difficulty seeing why it should have been supposed that the new parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English parliament but none of the Scottish parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the parliament of England."

If anyone wishes to read further, I would recommend this article, which contains the following paragraph

"Behind the aggressive posturing of Cameron and Salmond over the nature and timing of the Scottish referendum lay a clash of substance - of conflicting constitutional principles. When Salmond invoked the right of the Scottish people to decide on the date and the character of a referendum, he was not only challenging the authority of Westminster or invoking a general right to self-determination, he was also espousing the popular sovereignty principles of 1320. Popular sovereignty is not simply a nationalist shibboleth. There are plenty of unionist politicians in Scotland - Labour and Liberal - who subscribe to the idea of Scottish popular sovereignty. Indeed, the idea of popular sovereignty also underpinned the Claim of Right for Scotland in 1989. This document, which was signed by all of Scotland's sitting Labour and Liberal MPs (with the exception of the maverick Labour MP Tam Dalyell) and many of the leaders of Scottish civil society, declared 'the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs'. The popular sovereignty principles of the Claim of Right provided a platform of legitimacy for the deliberations of the Lib-Lab Constitutional Convention which met during the Thatcher-Major era without a formal constitutional mandate. Such invocations of popular sovereignty were far from mere empty exercises in constitutional theorising, for eventually the Constitutional Convention's blueprint for Scottish home rule was adopted in large part by the New Labour government in 1997 as the basis of the current devolution settlement."

[welshbairn]

I'd assume when the Declaration of Arbroath mentioned "people", they really meant Earls and Barons. I'd also be surprised if a medieval letter to the pope in pre democratic times would remove the supremacy of Westminster.

Edited June 1, 2019 by welshbairn

[lichtgilphead]

Just now, welshbairn said:

I'd assume when the Declaration of Arbroath mentioned "people", they really meant Earls and Barons. 

That was the effective Scottish electorate at that time, yes.

The electorate has been significantly extended since. The UK state have even allowed women to vote since 1918.

[Bishop Briggs]

3 hours ago, Stinky Bone said:

It went through westminster.  Scroll down to the bottom if you like.  

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-07-04/debates/18070455000001/ClaimOfRightForScotland

That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.

 

Nonsense. It was just a debate on a Commons motion chosen by the SNP for Opposition Day (see Col 407).

It has no legal effect whatsoever.

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

Would be happy to be proven wrong but seems very much like a case of barrack-room lawyering to me. As a general rule people should be very sceptical of the 'one weird trick to get independence' kind of arguments that crop up from time to time. I remember there was a poster on here years ago who was adamant he was going to take the UK government either to the Hague or the UN or something under the universal right to self-determination and once he won his case some judge would declare Scotland independent. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is....

I would hardly suggest that this is in the "one weird trick to get independence" league.

As the current Referendums Bill is within the competencies of the Scottish Government, it is likely to pass if the SNP & Greens support it.

If the bill is passed, it's effect will be that any future indy referendum proposal presented by the Scottish Ministers which is passed by a simple majority of the Scottish Parliament will be subject to its provisions. 

The UK Government can fast-track their objections to any Act of the Scottish Parliament to the Supreme Court under a provision of the Scotland Act.

However, decisions by Scottish ministers which Westminster objects to are not liable to immediate transferral to the UK Supreme Court. Objections to ministerial decisions have to be dealt with by the Scottish courts and make their way through the Scottish legal system.

As the Scottish legal system is more familiar with applying the doctorine of the people's sovereignty, it can be considered to be more likely to supprt the views of the elected Scottish ministers.

Obviously, if the UK Government appeals any such decision, it will eventually end up at the Supreme Court. However, I would suggest that the Supreme Court would be more wary of overturning decisions of the Scottish courts than if it was acting as a court of 1st instance.

We would still have to win the referendum to become independent though. That's how democracy works, not by Westminster simply refusing any request for a referendum.

 

[lichtgilphead]

39 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'd assume when the Declaration of Arbroath mentioned "people", they really meant Earls and Barons. I'd also be surprised if a medieval letter to the pope in pre democratic times would remove the supremacy of Westminster.

I see that you've edited your quote by adding to it.

The Declaration of Arbroath is routinely cited as part of the UK's unwritten constitution with regard to any Scottish context.

England's Magna Carta is even older. Are you suggesting that an ancient agreement between King John & some barons has no relevancy to the current UK constitution?

[welshbairn]

36 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I see that you've edited your quote by adding to it.

The Declaration of Arbroath is routinely cited as part of the UK's unwritten constitution with regard to any Scottish context.

England's Magna Carta is even older. Are you suggesting that an ancient agreement between King John & some barons has no relevancy to the current UK constitution?

Magna Carta was a signed agreement between the Barons and the King. The Declaration of Arbroath was just a letter to the Pope from the Scottish Barons and wasn't signed or agreed to by anyone but themselves.