Jump to content

Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens


The_Kincardine

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

In your terms that means I am hopelessly right here.

No it means you’re completely wrong.

49 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

That "Westminster Writ" goes from Thurso to Truro is beyond contention

No one here is disputing that the UK Parliament has constitutional power to make laws for Great Britain or any part of it.

49 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

and that the AoU created a new nation in perpetuity is a matter of fact.

This is full of hopeless contradiction. Not even Dicey was this muddled, and unlike you it seems like I’ve read his works on both of the Unions.

Either the UK Parliament has unlimited powers, in which case it can legislate to grant Scottish independence.

Or the 1707 Union is “perpetual”, in which case the UK Parliament cannot legislate to grant Scottish independence.

You can’t argue both.

Spoiler: neither is true. The UK Parliament can legislate for Scottish independence, but it does not have unlimited powers.

Indeed, I listened to Lord Hope of Craighead say precisely this (in reference to his remarks in Jackson v Attorney General, which you still have not read) at an event in Parliament yesterday evening.

49 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

It is also complete nonsense to say, "following the 2011 Scottish elections, the Prime Minister, the Government, and then those MPs acknowledged there was a constitutional justification for that referendum".

No it isn’t.

49 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

There was no such thing.  There was a pragmatic - not constitutional - driver for an IndyRef based on the notion it would knock it on the head once and for all.

This is what was said by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the Foreword to the UK Government’s consultation on facilitating a Scottish independence referendum:

“We want to keep the United Kingdom together. But we recognise that the Scottish Government holds the opposite view. In May 2011, the Scottish National Party won a majority in the Scottish Parliament; this was a significant electoral victory, which the UK Government has openly acknowledged.


The Scottish National Party entered the May 2011 election with a manifesto pledge for a referendum on independence. They have campaigned consistently for independence, and while the UK Government does not believe this is in the interests of Scotland, or the rest of the United Kingdom, we will not stand in the way of a referendum on independence: the future of Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom is for people in Scotland to vote on.”

This was, very clearly, a recognition that there was a constitutional justification for a referendum, albeit one that had to be agreed through a clear framework that included Westminster legislation.

49 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Dim Dave Cameron knew about as much about our unitary nation state as you did and made a complete arse of it.  This is the harvest we're reaping right now.

You are hopelessly out of your depth here.

You have about as much credibility here as someone claiming that leaving drinks are “reasonably necessary for work” during a pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not a lot of laughter on here.

I hear Oor Nic's finally come down with the Covid...that's bound to have made her a wee bit...krankie, amirite?

Spoiler

waiting-skeleton.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

You have about as much credibility here as someone claiming that leaving drinks are “reasonably necessary for work” during a pandemic.

You have to continually make these snide remarks.  What TF is wrong with you?  I can see it from the daft wee 'blood and soil' Natters but you acting like an ignorant boor is, surely, beneath you.  Maybe not.  Bit pathetic anyway.

The entire point is, "This was, very clearly, a recognition that there was a constitutional justification for a referendum, albeit one that had to be agreed through a clear framework that included Westminster legislation."

The bit you got wrong was "constitution recognition".  There was no such thing.  It was entirely pragmatic.  The bit you got right was, "Through...Westminster legislation".  Why?  Because we're a unitary nation state - which is where we started the discussion.

If you reply then stop being a child and try and play nicely - though I know you'll struggle with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

30% of the Scotch electorate is divided between Blood and Soil Natters and RA-loving Tartan Shinners.  The rest are just thick knuts.

Still,  not good reading for either party.

It's not clear to me on the direction of travel you have in mind from "snide".

Do you wish for a common descent to the gutter or are you happy to inhabit that space and urge politeness elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sophia said:

It's not clear to me on the direction of travel you have in mind from "snide".

Do you wish for a common descent to the gutter or are you happy to inhabit that space and urge politeness elsewhere?

I didn't make a snide remark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

 What TF is wrong with you?  I can see it from the daft wee 'blood and soil' Natters but you acting like an ignorant boor is, surely, beneath you.  Maybe not.  Bit pathetic anyway.

If you reply then stop being a child and try and play nicely - though I know you'll struggle with it.

 

 

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I didn't make a snide remark.

Technically true - you made several.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

I didn't make a snide remark.

There you go, that's something you have got right.

Rejoice Rejoice.

I fear you haven't understood my question but if you read it again, perhaps running your finger underneath the words and saying them out loud, you might do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sophia said:

There you go, that's something you have got right.

Rejoice Rejoice.

I fear you haven't understood my question but if you read it again, perhaps running your finger underneath the words and saying them out loud, you might do better.

Away and bore someone else.  Not even your fellow Nats can suffer your tedium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for the late response. I will address your points as they come, but to recap; The International Court of Justice in 2010 passed a majority decision on Kosovo which contain the following declaration:

Quote

"General international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence"

This prompted a challenge and a decision by the Canadian Supreme court in relation to secession of Quebec and UDI. They decided to affirm the right of secession and claim to independence through constitutional change. Quebec has the rights to a referendum, federal recognition, and in the event of a successful referendum vote; the right the negotiate secession. I think it a good example of a court embracing the principle and intent behind a ruling by a higher court that it pays reference to. They increased and secured a path to secession to such an extent that UDI may only be reconsidered in extreme circumstances.

Quote

 

Under international law, there is no right of secession, except in the context of colonies and oppressed peoples.

In the words of Alex Salmond in the 2014 White Paper, "Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated".

No, it is only valid in the context of what the Quebec Secession Reference correctly described as a "absolute denial" of self-determination for peoples.

A constitutional prohibition on secession is not regarded as an "absolute denial" of self-determination. The very existence of democratic sub-state government in Scotland is evidence to the contrary.

You might, but even then, only might, just have a point if the Westminster Parliament were actually to legislate to abolish the Scottish Parliament.

 

If you begin a sentence with "Under International Law..." then you better reference an international law.

The decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which amended their constitution, is a national law that has no jurisdiction or direct application outside Canada.

Your statement makes as much sense as saying "Under international law i can buy a gun because of the 2nd amendment."

In the absence of domestic legislation to the contrary there is no prohibition for UDI, how that applies within signatory states is subject to them.

The decision by Canada was to recognise that their preferred solution was negotiated settlement. This was stated throughout. They agreed that unilateral decisions by either side would be counter-productive to that end and they bound both Quebec and the Canadian government to negotiate. By adopting this change they obviated the need for unilateral declarations as there is now a legal path to negotiated secession within Canadian law.

None of this was adapted to UK law, so it is unclear to me why you see this as binding to Scotland or the UK as a whole.

Also, why do we only receive the limitations of the Canadian decision? You've argued that Scotland has no right to hold a referendum under UK/International law yet the Canadian decision explicitly mentions the ability of Quebec to hold a referendum and have the result recognised. Why is there no vote for us?

 

Quote

No, you accepted that Westminster is not bound by international law to enable a referendum to happen or to allow or accept Scottish independence.

I was describing the hierarchy and relationship between Westminster and Holyrood. A Holyrood that exists solely within UK law. I don't need to reference international law to do that. The links you provided showed that Westminster was proceeding with the conceit that it remains absolute at all times, and can reform, reduce and abolish Holyrood on a whim.

Quote

What I have pointed out to you is that any "rights" that Scotland might have under international law have to come with corresponding "duties", on the part of the UK, to accept, respect and honour those rights. Without those duties there are no rights.

Ideally yes. Trouble is that Westminster and the current government appear to not agree, and see themselves are absolute with regards to international agreements at this time. This is not condusive to negotiated settlement, which is something of a throughline in international treaties. Far too often we are seeing a government of the UK that resents its obligation under international law.

Quote

If international law says that I have the right not to be tortured, that comes with corresponding duties on (at least) contracting sovereign states (a) to not torture me and (b) to secure in domestic law and practice arrangements that ensure I am not tortured.

If those corresponding duties do not exist, then I do not have a meaningful right not to be tortured.

Similarly, neither the Scottish Government nor the Scottish people has any rights in international law that do not impose corresponding duties on the UK as an international actor to honour and give effect to those rights.

That's what international law is.

 

I understand international law well enough thanks. Glad you seem to recognise its importance.

When i brought up the GFA earlier you dismissed it. Due, in part, to it being international law.

The GFA does double double duty here though. It is both UK and international law.

As such it contains within it some key principles and provisions that may be applied to Scotland's situation directly. Like the trigger for a constitutional border poll for the citizens of Northern Ireland. The conditions for which have been clarified recently. It appears that the thresholds for holding a border poll would be the legislative ability by Stormont to pass a motion to that effect which then goes to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland requesting a referendum. The role of the NI Secretary is purely functional, a Mike Pence sort of deal.

Scotland appears to meet that threshold in international law. Thus if the UK government is committed to the principle of negotiated settlement it should be granted.

Refusal could be regarded as a unilateral denial of the rights to self-determination for the people of Scotland.

 

Quote

Otherwise you just sound like Sean Clerkin going into his local police station saying "I'd like to report a crime! An international war crime".

I don't know who that is.

Quote

 

The point is that it plays no meaningful or legitimate role in this constitutional dispute.

Civil disobedience in secession disputes only advances anything if there is clear evidence of oppression of those being absolutely denied self-determination.

Your real-world examples are those where sub-state nations have actually been oppressed.

Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated.

 

Your knee-jerk reaction to civil disobedience ignores the history of the GFA and Scotland and really is nothing more than an expressed desire to see no unpleasant consequences arise from political actions. We are seeing a whole slew of potential crises pending. We have increasing inflation. Direct interference by the UK in Irish affairs, which has something of a history of misplaced confidence in its ability to govern well or even competently in this regard. I was around during the poll tax riots in Scotland and the mass non-payment. The riots the following year were the ones that triggered change. In a way, a lot of Scottish politics is rooted in civil disobedience and non-compliance.

We didn't get the GFA by being dismissive or complacent. I like peace, i also like that people can use their power of assembly to influence, strike or protest.

I don't like that the UK government has the power to f**k with my human rights. Has stripped me of my European rights already and continues to act unilaterally.

I think it would be better if you understood that a UDI would be more akin to an appeal to a higher court on a particular issue. In Scotland's case a refusal to acknowledge the desire to express their political will through a referendum. When all avenues of negotiation have been purposely curtailed.

It would not arise without support of the international community, but i do not think your "method" of counting support is something they are looking to. They will negotiate with the First Minister in her role as representative of Scotland.

I will get to your voting schtick in another post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Zern, but this is all over the place. You've completely misconstrued the Quebec Secession Reference.

In answer to Question 1 of the reference (which was whether Quebec had a right under the Canadian constitution to secede unilaterally) the Court explicitly answered no. It said that a vote on a referendum, which is within the competence of the National Assembly would create a set of conditions in which good faith constitutional negotiations would have to take place to "respond to the desire" of Quebeckers to secede, but it did not compel any particular result or outcome.

In answer to Question 2 of the reference (whether Quebec had a right to unilateral secession under international law) the Court answered in the negative as well. It said that there were two established circumstances in which secession could be asserted unilaterally under international law:

(a) The right of colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking away from the "imperial" power (para 132 of the judgment)

(b) where a people is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation outside a colonial context (para 133 of the judgment)

And it considered, but did not explicitly rule either way on a third situation, namely "when a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally, it is entitled, as a last resort, to exercise it by secession". (para 134 of the judgment)

On the first and second, it said that sub-state entities like Quebec, which are democratically and constitutionally represented parts of a democratic state, clearly did not fit the criteria. On the third, the same conclusion was reached. The Court said (at para 136):

Quote

The population of Quebec cannot plausibly be said to be denied access to government. Quebecers occupy prominent positions within the government of Canada.  Residents of the province freely make political choices and pursue economic, social and cultural development within Quebec, across Canada, and throughout the world. The population of Quebec is equitably represented in legislative, executive and judicial institutions. In short, to reflect the phraseology of  the international documents that address the right to self-determination of peoples, Canada is a "sovereign and independent state conducting itself in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction".

I respectfully submit that, for as long as Scotland has MPs at Westminster, and especially for as long as it has a devolved Parliament, it also cannot plead being prevented from meaningful exercise of self-determination.

The Quebec Secession reference also directly addresses the position in international law if constitutional negotiations about a proposed secession break down. This is what it said at para 137:

Quote

The continuing failure to reach agreement on amendments to the Constitution, while a matter of concern, does not amount to a denial of self-determination.  In the absence of amendments to the Canadian Constitution, we must look at the constitutional arrangements presently in effect, and we cannot conclude under current circumstances that those arrangements place Quebecers in a disadvantaged position within the scope of the international law rule.

Respectfully, the same position would have applied in the event that the 2014 referendum went the other way in Scotland, and the same would be true if Holyrood somehow found a way to legislate for a second referendum in the next few years.

On the point of implementation, you would be relying on the success of political negotiations, albeit with a great deal of constitutional legitimacy if a referendum were lawfully held and especially if it were held with the assistance of Westminster legislation.

The Quebec Secession Reference says that unilateral secession would never be permissible for a sub-state entity that was like Quebec, as a matter of international law. It recognises that an unconstitutional secession might be recognised by other sovereign states, to create a "de facto" secession, but it is emphatic that this would be unconstitutional and a breach of international law (by undermining the territorial integrity of an existing sovereign state).

2 hours ago, Zern said:

I was describing the hierarchy and relationship between Westminster and Holyrood. A Holyrood that exists solely within UK law. I don't need to reference international law to do that. The links you provided showed that Westminster was proceeding with the conceit that it remains absolute at all times, and can reform, reduce and abolish Holyrood on a whim.

The UK Parliament demonstrably can legislate to abolish the Holyrood Parliament. It would face a substantial political price for doing so, not least given the legislative recognition in the Scotland Act 2016 that it should only happen if endorsed by a referendum of the Scottish people. But it can do that.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

Ideally yes. Trouble is that Westminster and the current government appear to not agree, and see themselves are absolute with regards to international agreements at this time. This is not condusive to negotiated settlement, which is something of a throughline in international treaties. Far too often we are seeing a government of the UK that resents its obligation under international law.

I really don't see where you're going with this. Just because the UK Government currently adopts a cavalier attitude towards respect for its international obligations, doesn't mean that a sub-state entity of the UK can therefore avail itself of rights in international law that are reserved to colonised and militarily occupied peoples and territories.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

I understand international law well enough thanks. Glad you seem to recognise its importance.

When i brought up the GFA earlier you dismissed it. Due, in part, to it being international law.

No I didn't. I said the Good Friday Agreement is not relevant, constitutionally, to Scotland's position in the UK. Because it isn't.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

The GFA does double double duty here though. It is both UK and international law.

And, crucially, it applies to the future of Northern Ireland, not Scotland.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

As such it contains within it some key principles and provisions that may be applied to Scotland's situation directly.

No it doesn't. It was a treaty text negotiated by the UK and Irish Governments to deal specifically with Northern Ireland and its unique conditions. The border poll provisions are about whether Northern Ireland should reunify with part of an entity that seceded from the UK. It is not about secession of Northern Ireland from the UK simpliciter.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

Like the trigger for a constitutional border poll for the citizens of Northern Ireland.

The only trigger for a border poll in Northern Ireland is whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland believes that there is a majority in favour of Irish reunification. There is no analogous constitutional or international law provision applicable either generally to sub-state units in the UK (or more widely) that would include Scotland in that.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

The conditions for which have been clarified recently. It appears that the thresholds for holding a border poll would be the legislative ability by Stormont to pass a motion to that effect which then goes to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland requesting a referendum.

No this is wrong. The threshold is, and always has been since the Good Friday Agreement and the implementing Northern Ireland Act 1998, an assessment made by the Secretary of State as to whether a majority exists for reunification. There is uncertainty as to exactly what evidence base would underpin this, but the law is clear: it's up to the Secretary of State.

Indeed, in recent days Brandon Lewis has ruled-out the possibility of such a poll, relying on evidence including the popular vote share of Nationalist parties, as well as opinion polling in Northern Ireland about the desire, or otherwise, for such a poll to take place.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

The role of the NI Secretary is purely functional, a Mike Pence sort of deal.

No it isn't. The SSNI is given wide political discretion to assess whether the condition precedent of an apparent majority is met. And he is secondly given absolute discretion, subject to the seven year waiting period, about whether otherwise to call such a poll.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

Scotland appears to meet that threshold in international law.

No, I'm afraid it patently does not. For two reasons:

(1) The Good Friday Agreement doesn't apply to Scotland

(2) The test contained in the GFA and NIA 1998 is very clear, and it is the Secretary of State's assessment about whether it appears likely that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote for reunification. There is absolutely no reference whatsoever to the passing of a motion by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

Thus if the UK government is committed to the principle of negotiated settlement it should be granted.

I'm afraid this doesn't follow. I wish that were our constitutional arrangement, but it isn't. And international law doesn't come to our aid.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

Refusal could be regarded as a unilateral denial of the rights to self-determination for the people of Scotland.

No. Sorry, but as a matter of international law it really can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zern said:

Your knee-jerk reaction to civil disobedience ignores the history of the GFA and Scotland and really is nothing more than an expressed desire to see no unpleasant consequences arise from political actions. We are seeing a whole slew of potential crises pending. We have increasing inflation. Direct interference by the UK in Irish affairs, which has something of a history of misplaced confidence in its ability to govern well or even competently in this regard. I was around during the poll tax riots in Scotland and the mass non-payment. The riots the following year were the ones that triggered change. In a way, a lot of Scottish politics is rooted in civil disobedience and non-compliance.

Politics, yes. Constitutional change? No.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

We didn't get the GFA by being dismissive or complacent. I like peace, i also like that people can use their power of assembly to influence, strike or protest.

I don't like that the UK government has the power to f**k with my human rights. Has stripped me of my European rights already and continues to act unilaterally.

This is irrelevant howling at the moon.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

I think it would be better if you understood that a UDI would be more akin to an appeal to a higher court on a particular issue. In Scotland's case a refusal to acknowledge the desire to express their political will through a referendum. When all avenues of negotiation have been purposely curtailed.

UDI isn't an appeal to a higher court. It is a decision to act outwith the framework of either domestic or international law, and to hope some other folk go along with it.

Unless you're seeking recognition from countries like Russia, it's a terrible idea that no sensible Nationalist should ever contemplate in the 21st century.

2 hours ago, Zern said:

It would not arise without support of the international community, but i do not think your "method" of counting support is something they are looking to. They will negotiate with the First Minister in her role as representative of Scotland.

Scotland would not get the support of the international community if it pursued UDI. Short of there being tanks in George Square again, the international community wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

I respectfully submit that, for as long as Scotland has MPs at Westminster, and especially for as long as it has a devolved Parliament, it also cannot plead being prevented from meaningful exercise of self-determination.

I’ll need to tell the wife to stop voting for the Abolish The Scottish Parliament Party then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Absolutely no shame. 

 


 

Absolute nonsense.

 

There are no industries that are spread evenly across the country. Some are much larger in the south of England, other in Wales. Oil and gas is particularly prominent in Scotland. Kirsty Blackman is clutching at straws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Donathan said:


 

Absolute nonsense.

 

There are no industries that are spread evenly across the country. Some are much larger in the south of England, other in Wales. Oil and gas is particularly prominent in Scotland. Kirsty Blackman is clutching at straws. 

The SNP voted against the windfall tax and gave the oil companies a sweetheart deal on offshore wind farms. They are totally compromised. 

Going on about Amazon when her government gives them millions in handouts is a joke as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SNP voted against the windfall tax and gave the oil companies a sweetheart deal on offshore wind farms. They are totally compromised. 
Going on about Amazon when her government gives them millions in handouts is a joke as well.
 
The SNP did not vote against the windfall tax as you state. They also argued that the tax should be extended beyond the oil and gas companies to any who made excessive profit from the pandemic or energy crisis.
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...