1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Scottish Independence - Court case lost

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Brian, Nov 23, 2022.

  1. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    I’m an anti-nationalist. I believe in knocking arbitrary walls down, not building even more. I can however fully understand Scotland wanting to distance itself from the endless death-spiral of Tory/Labour establishment rule of England and the racist and economically catastrophic dumpster fire of Brexit. These things clearly have no democratic legitimacy in Scotland whatsoever. I certainly respect Scottish resistance to the absolutely vile right-wing gutter politics and oligarchy of the UK as a whole. If I lived in Scotland I’d vote for independence and to rejoin the far larger EU block.
    Ali T, Konteebos, Cambs12 and 3 others like this.
  2. Martin J

    Martin J pfm Member

    Not in my eyes. Just a pathetic argument.
  3. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    Why is that? One key argument driving the 'stay' result in 2014 was the fact that, outside the UK, Scotland would also be outside the EU. That implies that many people, perhaps even a decisive number, voted to stay in the Union so as to stay in the EU. Therefore, if the Brexit result had been known beforehand, the Scottish referendum might have gone differently.

    That suggests that it's not a pathetic argument, so I'm interested in why, in your eyes, it is?
  4. Richard Lines

    Richard Lines pfm Member

    Possibly had more to do with better grade land and a longer growing season......


  5. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    I think we need to be clear about the ruling. The judges said that Scottish Parliament does not even have the right to call a non-binding referendum on the matter, despite international law giving the right of all minority 'peoples' to self-determination. Given that Scotland is clearly not 'colonised' or its people 'subjugated' then such self-determination is a matter for internal negotiation (or else it's by the outcome of war or revolution). The question for the Court then is how the Scottish nation (like the Catalans and others) can be represented in such negotiations or even how serious negotiations might be initiated by the minority side. The answer from the court (as in Spain) seems to be 'tough titties' and that cannot be right under the UN Charter (Article One):

    1. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
    Famously 'peoples' remains undefined but it's hard to argue that the population of a distinct nation with its own identity and, in fact, its own laws are not peoples. [The clue is 'self' but what should be the threshold - unanimity? near-unanimity? 50%+!? A voting majority?]
  6. davidsrsb

    davidsrsb pfm Member

    And the Highland clearances, the displaced farmers had to go somewhere
  7. dweezil

    dweezil pfm Member

    We're all envious of the long Scottish days in summer and their deep brown earths; pity a lot of that was planted with conifer forest.

    The Scots who stayed behind did well, fun bunch when they come down to see their families.
  8. eternumviti

    eternumviti Wittering on the Vine

    There is no such thing.

  9. JensenHealey

    JensenHealey pfm Member

    The Scottish government of the day (led by Alex Salmond) agreed the bill that allowed a referendum to take place. Moaning now about it is too late - the Scottish Government are bound by their own agreement over the matter of future referendums. To Alex Salmonds surprise they lost, again a large quiet contingent of voters chose to stay in the union. Scotland thus will have to wait a suitable period of time before trying again. The Supreme Court came to the same view that the Scottish Attorney General came to.

    SNP clearly want a referendum after referendum after referendum until they get the result they want. Do you really believe that the SNP would ever allow another referendum for unionists after they get the result they want. Of course not.

    The decent way to proceed is to wait a decent amount of time (I would say 15 or even 20 years) for such a momentous choice. 5 would be seen as way too short in historical terms. You need another generation to have their say and the current politicians to have moved on somewhat too.

    Re-joining the EU is practical impossibility at present for a variety of reasons. So, it is a red herring. Anyway, why go 'independent' from the UK and then try to join the EU where there would be far less 'independence' on a variety of fronts - it just does not make sense. Anyone think the EU would subside the Scottish economy in the same way that Westminster does? Dream on. Yes, you could export products more 'easily', but the EU is about a lot more than that!
    eternumviti likes this.
  10. kensalriser

    kensalriser pfm Member

  11. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    Indeed. The Tories more recently have stayed shtum about the way before the IndyRef they kept harping on that "Scotland would be ejected from the EU if it chose to leave the UK. And would *NOT* be allowed back in." Their argument/threat deterred some to vote 'No' at the time for that specific reason - inc. myself. I have regretted that ever since Brexit. (Note also that the two referenda were decided under different rules as well!)
    SteveS1 likes this.
  12. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    Yes. The point of asking for the Court Ruling was to illuminate the basic problem here. That Scotland and its population have, now, no way to even decide if they want to leave the UK or not. Instead they have to rely on asking the rUK for their kind permission to even take a vote on it. Yet the Union is supposed to be a matter of equal partners choosing to be together.

    In implication: if the English MPs were able to form a majority at Westminster on the issue they could decide to *expel* - Scotland even if it wanted to remain in the UK. But Scotland can't decide either way. Clearly not an equal partnership.

    The point of asking the Supreme Court is that it brings out these issues into being visible.
  13. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    That's nonsense. The rUK subsequently altered the proposition they put to Scotland in 2014 fundermentally, very much against the wishes of the Scots. The argument put to them that voting for independence would remove Scotland from the EU swayed a lot of voters. The difference that Brexit has made is fundamental to what was on offer. There can be no denying that.

    Much as I would prefer to see Scotland stay and personally don't think it's a wise move, they have a right to make that choice themselves. Had Engalnd and Wales not voted the way they did, Sturgeon would have no case. But they did and it's no use pretending it wouldn't have swayed the 2014 vote.
  14. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    Indeed. However (to play devil's advocate for a second), at least in principle, Scottish MPs could be in the same party as English MPs or be in a coalition and agree on a referendum at Westminster. That is inconsistent with the proposition that a vote is denied in perpetuity, it's just that the Tories and Starmer are currently immovable obstacles. There has always been a question too, within the UN, about a sizable minority within a nation and whether it's right that a relatively small majority (say 70-30 even) should be able to dictate a matter of such importance. I don't think the SNP has really thought that one through and the court would (perhaps) have been mindful of these points.
  15. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    The threat to the Union was highighted as a reason not to support Brexit. Having demonstrated that we heard that but don't care, it seems churlish to deny those affected a chance to rectify what they may now see as a misrepresented situation in 2014. If the Pro-Union lobby is confident that this hasn't changed the view in Scotland, it would be better to allow a vote while you can still campaign on it being "too soon" and all that. Because the question won't go away and the more Brexit damage is done, the more they may want out.
    Nick_G and Sue Pertwee-Tyr like this.
  16. richardg

    richardg Admonishtrator

    But imagine Scotland got independence on a promise to join the EU, but then failed to get in. You'd have to offer another referendum to rejoin the UK, based on that argument. It'd never end.

    I dont think you need to use Brexit.
  17. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    Writing as someone who was deterred by the threat during IndyRef I might be willing to take that chance. I suspect the EU would now be happy to take Scotland - if only to raise two digits to Westminster. Others may feel the same. Pointing out this risk isn't a justification for blocking people from being allowed to decide. All life is a risk.
  18. richardg

    richardg Admonishtrator

    I believe if the people want one for whatever reason, they should get one. No need for Brexit as a crutch in the argument.
  19. myles

    myles Intentionally left blank

    Imagine if the offer to rejoin the UK wasn't extended.... cor!
  20. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    Brexit isn't a crutch for an argument here. It's the game changer for Sturgeon - she wouldn't have much of a case without it. I understand you as a brexiter are keen to distance Brexit from it's consequences, but it doesn't fly when threatening the Union was outlined very clearly as a risky outcome.
    tuga likes this.

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice