When will indyref2 happen?

[Bishop Briggs]

Just now, Stinky Bone said:

Honestly?  We don't have a claim of right? 

That has certainly cheered me up, better let my oppressor put my chain back on again.  

I was merely refuting your nonsensical claim that it "went through Westminster".

That debate had no legal relevance. Did you even bother to read what Ian Blackford said? 

[The_Kincardine]

40 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

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

Not at all.  Still, if it's ' routinely cited as part of the UK's unwritten constitution' then you'll forward said citations.

[Bishop Briggs]

2 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

Scottish affairs discussed in westminster are nonsensical and illegal.  Understood.  

I did not say that either. It was just a debate on an SNP motion, not a Bill or statutory instrument.

Are you thick or just a total w****r? 

[lichtgilphead]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

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.

So what? It's still routinely cited as part of the UK's unwritten constitution with regard to any Scottish context

5 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Not at all.  Still, if it's ' routinely cited as part of the UK's unwritten constitution' then you'll forward said citations.

Love the way you've truncated my quote. Well done you.

I specifically said "routinely cited as part of the UK's unwritten constitution with regard to any Scottish context"

However, let's start with the old favourite, Wikipedia

"In Scotland, the separate history of Scots law and separate constitutional documents such as the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 have led to differences in views about parliamentary sovereignty and debates about constitutional tradition."

More Wikipedia

History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom

"Selected Scottish documents and statutes
Leges inter Brettos et Scottos 1124, Laws of the Brets (Welsh) and Scots
Declaration of Arbroath 1320, declaration sent to Pope asserting the sovereignty of the people of Scotland [note 1]
Claim of Right Act 1689
Union with England Act 1707, based on the Treaty of Union and creates the new Parliament of Great Britain

HOUSE OF COMMONS RESEARCH PAPER 98/3 7 JANUARY 1998 The Scotland Bill: Some Constitutional and Representational Aspects

"The reality is that the Scottish people are sovereign, and it is irrelevant what is said in the Scotland Bill. From the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, to Lord Cooper's 1953 judgement in the Court of Session, to the 1989 Claim of Right, the legal fact in Scotland is that the people are sovereign - and that parliamentary sovereignty is alien to Scottish constitutional law."

Core Principles of the Traditional British Constitutions

"Nonetheless, a distinguished lineage of Scottish jurists, politicians and historians has made the point that the idea of popular sovereignty can be found in Scottish political thought from the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. A consensus has emerged within the Scots intelligentsia that… the country’s indigenous constitutional tradition has been one of popular, rather than parliamentary sovereignty."

Peter, Speirs (2015) Scotland’s challenge to parliamentary sovereignty: can Westminster abolish the Scottish Parliament unilaterally? LL.M(R) thesis.

" From this, and from such other iconic texts as the Declaration of Arbroath and his interpretation of the ancient constitution, has derived the thesis that in Scottish constitutional tradition, sovereignty belonged to the people, to the community of the realm, rather than to Parliament, or, strictly King or Queen in Parliament.

BREXIT, ARTICLE 50 AND THE CONTESTED BRITISH CONSTITUTION

Scottish intellectuals, lawyers and politicians of many different political persuasions stand by an indigenous Scottish tradition of popular sovereignty that is claimed to date back to the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. They hold that, before the 1707 Act of Union, sovereignty resided in the Scottish people - and that it still does so, in spite of the claims of Diceyan parliamentary sovereignty.
 

Will these citations suffice?

[BFTD]

With the Declaration of Arbroath now cited, I'll be very disappointed if we don't see some input from the Scottish Sovereigns soon.

@Skittles - you out of the jail yet?

[lichtgilphead]

6 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

With the Declaration of Arbroath now cited, I'll be very disappointed if we don't see some input from the Scottish Sovereigns soon.

@Skittles - you out of the jail yet?

I'll look forward to you posting links to learned constitutional articles that reference links between the Scottish Sovereigns & believable UK Constitutional writings

Until then, I remain to be convinced.

Signed

Gilp of the Family Lichthead

[BFTD]

3 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I'll look forward to you posting links to learned constitutional articles that reference links between the Scottish Sovereigns & believable UK Constitutional writings

Until then, I remain to be convinced.

Signed

Gilp of the Family Lichthead

Please note that this reply does not indicate confirmation of any binding contract between Gilp of the Family Lichthead and any entity known as 'BigFatTabbyDave', nor acceptance that the aforementioned exist in any legally conventional sense.

(unless I win the World Cup sweepstake: then I exist until the cheque clears)

[git-intae-thum]

It was quite interesting magna carta getting mentioned. It seems obvious that it would would form a basis for UK legal and constitutional tradition

It does...and rightly so.....for England 

And so at the same time there should be no doubting the similar importance to UK legal and constitutional history of the declaration of Arbroath in respect of Scotland. This is a document that has been cited as one of the most important influencing texts in the early modern world. A source whose concepts lay foundation for some of the ideas that led to constitutions of the US and French Republics. 

And.....its ours. Its precis forms part of our distinct Scots law, supposedly guaranteed as separate by the Act of Union. (but  apparently now superceded by a UKSC established by Blairs govt 20 years ago. )

Even if the signatories in 1320 did only amount to a small sectiom of the population, it is our first expression of people power. One of the first such in the world. 

As a nation we really could be a bit more guarded to the reality of being rinsed of the knowledge of our own distinct legal rights and legal history.

[git-intae-thum]

8 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said:

I was merely refuting your nonsensical claim that it "went through Westminster".

That debate had no legal relevance. Did you even bother to read what Ian Blackford said? 

The motion was passed unanimously with strong support from unionist MP's also. You are correct it is not legally binding.

You incorrect in that it has no legal relevance. This motion will no doubt cause difficulty in the future to a UK govt legal team trying to argue the case against the claim of right.

[lichtgilphead]

10 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Two party politics may be permanently finished in WM. There could easily be 5 strong parties with more than 50 seats each.

There are 650 seats at Westminster. 5 times 50 is only 250. 

Who represents the other 400 constituencies?

[Bishop Briggs]

6 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

The motion was passed unanimously with strong support from unionist MP's also. You are correct it is not legally binding.

You incorrect in that it has no legal relevance. This motion will no doubt cause difficulty in the future to a UK govt legal team trying to argue the case against the claim of right.

An Opposition Day motion, sponsored by the SNP, has no legal relevance. If it had, the Government would have whipped its MPs to vote against it. The Minister was not given the opportunity to even comment on it. Its effect on the legal claim of right is absolutely zero. 

There are lots of such motions passed on Opposition Days in the Commons every year. They are just a means for Opposition MPs and backbenchers to let off steam in debate. You should learn more about Parliament and how it operates before making such an absurd comment.

[git-intae-thum]

3 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

An Opposition Day motion, sponsored by the SNP, has no legal relevance. If it had, the Government would have whipped its MPs to vote against it. The Minister was not given the opportunity to even comment on it. Its effect on the legal claim of right is absolutely zero. 

There are lots of such motions passed on Opposition Days in the Commons every year. They are just a means for Opposition MPs and backbenchers to let off steam in debate. You should learn more about Parliament and how it operates before making such an absurd comment.

Arrogance is always a dangerous combination with ignorance. Your post displays both in buckets. I am being generous because otherwise it's simple deceit.

The reason the motion was not opposed is because the govt know they would lose.

Up until the 2017 election it was govt policy to oppose opposition motions and they regularly did so. They stopped because after losing their parliamentary majority, they fear losing such motions and have taken the huff. They now simply refuse to whip MP's to attend. Pretty disrespectful behaviour by a ruling government towards parliament.

Regardless of whether the tories could be arsed to attend and vote or not a parliamentary motion was passed at Westminster. As I said, not legally binding, but definitely of legal relevance.

Much to the now chagrin of the uber unionist element it would seem as they realise that their own arrogance has seen them stitched up like a kipper.

[John Lambies Doos]

All these treaty and agreements mean f**k all, if Scotland demands independence.

[Bishop Briggs]

1 hour ago, git-intae-thum said:

Arrogance is always a dangerous combination with ignorance. Your post displays both in buckets. I am being generous because otherwise it's simple deceit.

The reason the motion was not opposed is because the govt know they would lose.

Up until the 2017 election it was govt policy to oppose opposition motions and they regularly did so. They stopped because after losing their parliamentary majority, they fear losing such motions and have taken the huff. They now simply refuse to whip MP's to attend. Pretty disrespectful behaviour by a ruling government towards parliament.

Regardless of whether the tories could be arsed to attend and vote or not a parliamentary motion was passed at Westminster. As I said, not legally binding, but definitely of legal relevance.

Much to the now chagrin of the uber unionist element it would seem as they realise that their own arrogance has seen them stitched up like a kipper.

You are truly deluded. The Government could easily have defeated that motion if it had any legal relevance. The reality is that the Unionist parties have a massive Commons majority that can defeat the SNP's motions if they want to. In this case, the vast majority could not even be bothered to turn up. They were probably in their offices or constituencies, in the bar or anything which was preferable to being bored to death by an irrelevant debate. 

[git-intae-thum]

25 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

You are truly deluded. The Government could easily have defeated that motion if it had any legal relevance. The reality is that the Unionist parties have a massive Commons majority that can defeat the SNP's motions if they want to. In this case, the vast majority could not even be bothered to turn up. They were probably in their offices or constituencies, in the bar or anything which was preferable to being bored to death by an irrelevant debate. 

Eh...no . If they cannae be arsed debating something of real relevance to the people of Scotland.....well it says it all.

The claim of right has the backing of the labour party, Plaid and the libdems. If this had really been challenged the Tories would have faced a really messy defeat. There is every chance that even with whipping, enough of them wouldn't have bothered turning up. They would have lost even with the backing of their Ulster goons

As it stands it was still a defeat. The claim of right is acknowledged by Westminster. 

 

[lichtgilphead]

18 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I said MORE than 50.

I used the number 50 to include the SNP.

OK, so what you really meant to say was something like Con, Lab, Lib & Bre with with 120 - 150 seats each, SNP with 50 and Green/Plaid/NI parties with about 24.

I wouldn't call that "5 strong parties"

Anyway, going on the most recent poll, Electoral calculus predicts the following result. As usual, Scotland will get a government (Bre-Con coalition or Bre-Lib coalition) that it didn't wote for.

 

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

OK, so what you really meant to say was something like Con, Lab, Lib & Bre with with 120 - 150 seats each, SNP with 50 and Green/Plaid/NI parties with about 24.

I wouldn't call that "5 strong parties"

What would you call it? The UK will have to get used to minority Governments and learning to compromise across party lines, like nearly every other Government in Europe has had to for decades. It's a major sea change.

[lichtgilphead]

12 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

What would you call it? The UK will have to get used to minority Governments and learning to compromise across party lines, like nearly every other Government in Europe has had to for decades. It's a major sea change.

I'm not convinced. I expect one party of the left (Labour) and one party of the right (either Brexit or Con) to hoover up the vast majority of the seats. 

The Electoral calculus projection I posted above bears out my view. Labour & Brexit have 511 of the 650 seats. 

However, there's no realistic prospect of a left of centre government emerging from that distribution, as the Conservatives & DUP will refuse to go into coalition with Labour.

Whatever happens, Scotland will still be ruled by a right-wing government that we didn't vote for. 

Our only sensible option is to leave the UK and retain our place in the EU.

 

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I'm not convinced. I expect one party of the left (Labour) and one party of the right (either Brexit or Con) to hoover up the vast majority of the seats. 

The Electoral calculus projection I posted above bears out my view. Labour & Brexit have 511 of the 650 seats. 

However, there's no realistic prospect of a left of centre government emerging from that distribution, as the Conservatives & DUP will refuse to go into coalition with Labour.

Whatever happens, Scotland will still be ruled by a right-wing government that we didn't vote for. 

Our only sensible option is to leave the UK and retain our place in the EU.

 

I wouldn't pay much attention to that poll, or any at the moment. 2 days before another poll had the Lib dems in the lead with an easy path to a remainy majority.

[NotThePars]

There was another poll that left Labour just short of a majority but enough if they went into coalition with the SNP and/ or the Lib Dems. Anyone making any concrete predictions at this juncture is at it. Even the pollsters haven't a fucking clue.