How secure is Nicola Sturgeon's position?

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, Stinky Bone said:

Gordon, I disagree.  Scotland is recognised worldwide.  We have the brand and all it needs is the wee push from our citizens to make it a world class country by voting for independence. 

It doesn't have to be tested in courts.  The people of Scotland shall decide.  

We already have many mandates.  

Let us make our representatives use those mandates. 

 

 

"Recognised" has a specific meaning in international law and international relations. It doesn't mean "aw yeah, I've heard of them." It means they accept you as an independent country. Literally no-one would recognise a Scottish UDI. It's not even up for discussion.

Not being recognised means you can't be a member of any international organisation, including the UN and the EU. It means you can't have armed forces. It means you can't issue passports that have any effect. It means you can't trade internationally at all. There are territories with at least at much right to being recognised than Scotland would have following a UDI, but are not.

Catalonia held an independence referendum, won it, declared independence and is recognised by precisely no sovereign countries. Their independence has been specifically rejected by the EU, UN, China, Russia and the USA, among many, many others. Even the Irish government said "We are all concerned about the crisis in Catalonia. Ireland respects the constitutional and territorial integrity of Spain and we do not accept or recognise the Catalan Unilateral Declaration of Independence."

Northern Cyrpus is only recognised by Turkey. Transnistria and Somaliland have been de facto independent countries for years, nobody recognises them.

The only exception is Taiwan, which is recognised as independent by very few countries but is treated as independent by almost all. That's because nobody wants to piss off the Chinese that much. Taiwan's status was won through armed conflict, and it's important to stress that they have never declared independence from the rest of China - they have always claimed the rest of China belongs to them, because that's where the government of China fled to in 1949.

If the Scottish Courts don't recognise a declaration of independence then it doesn't matter what legislation the Scottish Parliament passes on the taxes and benefits not currently in their control, or defence, or foreign relations, or broadcasting, or currency,   or company law, or anything else that's reserved, that legislation will be struck down and have no effect. We'd have no control over UK government organisations in Scotland like the MOD, DVLA, HMRC and DWP. We wouldn't be able to collect the taxes necessary to fund the country. We wouldn't have control at the borders. The Scottish people can do precisely nothing about that, the legal system of Scotland can't be separated from the control of the UK parliament without the UK parliament's agreement, and no Scottish Court is ever going to see it any other way. It's the law.

So what exactly would be the point of declaring independence without the agreement of the UK government? Legally, internationally? None. If the Scottish Parliament declared independence then precisely nothing would actually change at all. Politically? I think most people in Scotland would regard it as a reckless stunt and it would damage the credibility of the independence movement in the eyes of the middle ground that they are yet to win over. That last sentence is up for debate, but the rest of my post really isn't.

 

[AUFC90]

"Recognised" has a specific meaning in international law and international relations. It doesn't mean "aw yeah, I've heard of them." It means they accept you as an independent country. Literally no-one would recognise a Scottish UDI. It's not even up for discussion.
Not being recognised means you can't be a member of any international organisation, including the UN and the EU. It means you can't have armed forces. It means you can't issue passports that have any effect. It means you can't trade internationally at all. There are territories with at least at much right to being recognised than Scotland would have following a UDI, but are not.
Catalonia held an independence referendum, won it, declared independence and is recognised by precisely no sovereign countries. Their independence has been specifically rejected by the EU, UN, China, Russia and the USA, among many, many others. Even the Irish government said "We are all concerned about the crisis in Catalonia. Ireland respects the constitutional and territorial integrity of Spain and we do not accept or recognise the Catalan Unilateral Declaration of Independence."
Northern Cyrpus is only recognised by Turkey. Transnistria and Somaliland have been de facto independent countries for years, nobody recognises them.
The only exception is Taiwan, which is recognised as independent by very few countries but is treated as independent by almost all. That's because nobody wants to piss off the Chinese that much. Taiwan's status was won through armed conflict, and it's important to stress that they have never declared independence from the rest of China - they have always claimed the rest of China belongs to them, because that's where the government of China fled to in 1949.
If the Scottish Courts don't recognise a declaration of independence then it doesn't matter what legislation the Scottish Parliament passes on the taxes and benefits not currently in their control, or defence, or foreign relations, or broadcasting, or currency,   or company law, or anything else that's reserved, that legislation will be struck down and have no effect. We'd have no control over UK government organisations in Scotland like the MOD, DVLA, HMRC and DWP. We wouldn't be able to collect the taxes necessary to fund the country. We wouldn't have control at the borders. The Scottish people can do precisely nothing about that, the legal system of Scotland can't be separated from the control of the UK parliament without the UK parliament's agreement, and no Scottish Court is ever going to see it any other way. It's the law.
So what exactly would be the point of declaring independence without the agreement of the UK government? Legally, internationally? None. If the Scottish Parliament declared independence then precisely nothing would actually change at all. Politically? I think most people in Scotland would regard it as a reckless stunt and it would damage the credibility of the independence movement in the eyes of the middle ground that they are yet to win over. That last sentence is up for debate, but the rest of my post really isn't.
 

It wouldn't be a wreckless stunt if support continues to grow and democracy is denied for a period of time.

Also, Scotland isn't Catalonia it's always been a country and everyone knows it. Mauchline is older than than the United States.

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, AUFC90 said:

It wouldn't be a wreckless stunt if support continues to grow and democracy is denied for a period of time.

You're right. But I really don't think it would do that, I think it would scare moderates away. It would make people wonder if their leaders were fit to run a proper country. I think if you ask around that's what you'll find.

Quote

Also, Scotland isn't Catalonia it's always been a country and everyone knows it. Mauchline is older than than the United States.

Doesn't make any difference, there's absolutely no chance that any country recognises Scotland in the absence of a clearly legal referendum and without the agreement of the UK government. There's not the tiniest scrap of evidence to suggest other countries would do it. Only last month former UK diplomat Dame Mariot Leslie, Kings College Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs told MSPs: "The reality is that no other country would recognise an independent Scotland until London had recognised it - then there would be a rapid queue of European Union countries, and countries beyond the EU who would do so.  But I can't see any country we would wish to be recognised by jumping that gun until London had recognised an independent Scotland." There's no informed person that see it any other way.

[BawWatchin]

7 hours ago, GordonS said:

"Recognised" has a specific meaning in international law and international relations. It doesn't mean "aw yeah, I've heard of them." It means they accept you as an independent country. Literally no-one would recognise a Scottish UDI. It's not even up for discussion.

Not being recognised means you can't be a member of any international organisation, including the UN and the EU. It means you can't have armed forces. It means you can't issue passports that have any effect. It means you can't trade internationally at all. There are territories with at least at much right to being recognised than Scotland would have following a UDI, but are not.

Catalonia held an independence referendum, won it, declared independence and is recognised by precisely no sovereign countries. Their independence has been specifically rejected by the EU, UN, China, Russia and the USA, among many, many others. Even the Irish government said "We are all concerned about the crisis in Catalonia. Ireland respects the constitutional and territorial integrity of Spain and we do not accept or recognise the Catalan Unilateral Declaration of Independence."

Northern Cyrpus is only recognised by Turkey. Transnistria and Somaliland have been de facto independent countries for years, nobody recognises them.

The only exception is Taiwan, which is recognised as independent by very few countries but is treated as independent by almost all. That's because nobody wants to piss off the Chinese that much. Taiwan's status was won through armed conflict, and it's important to stress that they have never declared independence from the rest of China - they have always claimed the rest of China belongs to them, because that's where the government of China fled to in 1949.

If the Scottish Courts don't recognise a declaration of independence then it doesn't matter what legislation the Scottish Parliament passes on the taxes and benefits not currently in their control, or defence, or foreign relations, or broadcasting, or currency,   or company law, or anything else that's reserved, that legislation will be struck down and have no effect. We'd have no control over UK government organisations in Scotland like the MOD, DVLA, HMRC and DWP. We wouldn't be able to collect the taxes necessary to fund the country. We wouldn't have control at the borders. The Scottish people can do precisely nothing about that, the legal system of Scotland can't be separated from the control of the UK parliament without the UK parliament's agreement, and no Scottish Court is ever going to see it any other way. It's the law.

So what exactly would be the point of declaring independence without the agreement of the UK government? Legally, internationally? None. If the Scottish Parliament declared independence then precisely nothing would actually change at all. Politically? I think most people in Scotland would regard it as a reckless stunt and it would damage the credibility of the independence movement in the eyes of the middle ground that they are yet to win over. That last sentence is up for debate, but the rest of my post really isn't.

 

The UK Government will NEVER agree to Scottish Independence though. So what other options are there?

Either we do something, or we continue to do nothing at all.

[Baxter Parp]

The UK Government will NEVER agree to Scottish Independence though. So what other options are there?

Either we do something, or we continue to do nothing at all.

Something like what?

[BawWatchin]

43 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

2 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

The UK Government will NEVER agree to Scottish Independence though. So what other options are there?

Either we do something, or we continue to do nothing at all.

Something like what?

That's the question isn't it?
The UK Government can simply ignore the issue forever and as long as they do, the rest of the world will as well. Yet, as a nation, we seem rather calm about that notion. Which is worrying to say the least.

[alta-pete]

A gossipy rumour - completely unsubstantiated and probably wholly scurrilous - going round these parts that Nicola is moving to Bridge of Allan with her new belle.

Time will tell...

[Sunrise]

A gossipy rumour - completely unsubstantiated and probably wholly scurrilous - going round these parts that Nicola is moving to Bridge of Allan with her new belle.
Time will tell...

“Wholly scurrilous” - invented by AgentP22 and his ilk on Twitter you mean.

[welshbairn]

What's wrong with Bridge of Allan?

[Rodhull]

Alyn Smith's partner now trying to stand for Edinburgh South and his past comments are being brought up.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5355127/snp-holyrood-abuse-trans-rights-activist-election/amp/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebaramp

[O'Kelly Isley III]

22 hours ago, alta-pete said:

A gossipy rumour - completely unsubstantiated and probably wholly scurrilous - going round these parts that Nicola is moving to Bridge of Allan with her new belle.

Time will tell...

What exactly is the point of this post ?  And where are 'these parts' ?

[Rodhull]

3 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Finding little to disagree with there

Luckily though you're not running. Calling celebs crack whores and saying a woman needs punched isn't a good look for a man seeking election.

[MONKMAN]

He just looks like a complete c**t, reading the article confirms this.

[welshbairn]

Normal for P+B imo.

[DublinMagyar]

He's quit the Party