The Scottish Politics Thread

[weegie01]

I don't see an issue in conceding that there will be negotiating around who pays for what. There are likely to be instances where rUK continues to pay for things it has no obligation to do balanced by Scotland taking on costs it has no obligation to do.

But even pro independence as I am, I have made the same point as tc27, the starting point is rUK retains no obligation for pensions as they are strictly a current account matter.

I have said the same in the other place where advocates of Irish reunification make the same argument.

[Tichtheid]

I don't see an issue in conceding that there will be negotiating around who pays for what. There are likely to be instances where rUK continues to pay for things it has no obligation to do balanced by Scotland taking on costs it has no obligation to do.

But even pro independence as I am, I have made the same point as tc27, the starting point is rUK retains no obligation for pensions as they are strictly a current account matter.

I have said the same in the other place where advocates of Irish reunification make the same argument.

There are around a million people who have retired overseas who are receiving a UK state pension, the amount they receive is dependent on the number of years they paid NICs in the UK.
It would be difficult to argue that, post Indy, these people would be in such different circumstances from the circa 1.1M Scots of pensionable age.

There could be a collective action put forward if either/both groups were cut off.

Nothing is straightforward and simple in this matter.

[Biffer]

Quick note - taxpayers in the rest of the UK will not pay pensions or other state benefits for an independent Scotland - the fact this still gets floated IMO shows how unserious those advocating Independence are about the economic consequences.

I am puzzled by the GRA legislation - could be someone looking for a legacy? I cannot see how it works in a UK sense unless a self IDed trans women suddenly reverts back to being a man when they travel to a different part of the UK? Would not surprise me if it ends up being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Anything to back that up other than tc27 thinks so, so it must be right? We all have views and n what the settlement would/could/should be but stating any of it as definite is just dumb.

1. As pointed out by Ticht the position of the Scottish government in its 2014 white paper

2. This is also the position of UK government ministers when asked subsequently

3. Simple common sense is that if you take 9% of the tax base you also take the obligation to pay that 9% state benefits.

Suggesting it might happen because of negations is fantasy - its a £9 billion PA obligation in negotiations where the rUK would have almost all the leverage.

So none of it is definite, just likely. That's all I'm getting at - you made a definite statement as if it was backed up by something factual. Both state pensions and civil service pension obligations are complex and aren't likely to be governed by a broad sweeping statement like the one you made.

[tc27]

Anything to back that up other than tc27 thinks so, so it must be right? We all have views and n what the settlement would/could/should be but stating any of it as definite is just dumb.

1. As pointed out by Ticht the position of the Scottish government in its 2014 white paper

2. This is also the position of UK government ministers when asked subsequently

3. Simple common sense is that if you take 9% of the tax base you also take the obligation to pay that 9% state benefits.

Suggesting it might happen because of negations is fantasy - its a £9 billion PA obligation in negotiations where the rUK would have almost all the leverage.

So none of it is definite, just likely. That's all I'm getting at - you made a definite statement as if it was backed up by something factual. Both state pensions and civil service pension obligations are complex and aren't likely to be governed by a broad sweeping statement like the one you made.

Yeah sure keep believing that if you want despite the SNP, UK government and any credible economist saying otherwise...I suppose nothing is impossible.....but by this logic the SG negotiator's could have a bad day and end up paying for England's pensioners (which is just as likely IMO).

[Tichtheid]

Isn't it funny how "credible economists" are always the ones who support one's point of view and the untrustworthy ones are those who oppose that position?

For what it's worth, I think the SG's position is correct, that Edinburgh will be responsible for state pensions, but that situation will not come into existence in isolation, it will be part of negotiations as to what the full assets and liabilities are, and where they are attributed.

I don't see this as being a particularly contentious statement- in short, "listen pal, we've got to pay these pensions, if you think you can stick us for a proportion of HS2 you can stick that right up yer airse", or words to that effect.

[Biffer]

Isn't it funny how "credible economists" are always the ones who support one's point of view and the untrustworthy ones are those who oppose that position?

For what it's worth, I think the SG's position is correct, that Edinburgh will be responsible for state pensions, but that situation will not come into existence in isolation, it will be part of negotiations as to what the full assets and liabilities are, and where they are attributed.

I don't see this as being a particularly contentious statement- in short, "listen pal, we've got to pay these pensions, if you think you can stick us for a proportion of HS2 you can stick that right up yer airse", or words to that effect.

That's exactly my point. Scottish pensioners / english pensioners isn't a straightforward divide.

[fishfoodie]

One of the foremost fuckwits in the HoC is trying to scupper any possibility of Independence for Scotland !


..... or re-unification for Ireland ....

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/polit ... nd-3910695

Funnily enough, he had no problem with the Brexit Referendum only passing by a couple of percent.

Ian Paisley Jr Bill aims to add super-majority requirement to border poll on united Ireland

A bill that would make it more difficult for a united Ireland to pass in any border poll has been introduced to Parliament by Ian Paisley.

The DUP MP has proposed specific turnout requirements that would mean a straightforward "50% plus one" majority in favour of a united Ireland would not be enough to see Northern Ireland leave the UK and join with the Republic.

The North Antrim MP pointed to recent comments from the Republic of Ireland's Tanaiste, Leo Varadkar, who was met with boos during a recent conference in Dublin on the possibility of a united Ireland when he suggested a simple, narrow majority should not be enough for such a large change.

Mr Paisley’s Bill would also have implications for the Scottish independence campaign.

He said he introduced it after witnessing the "sense of unhappiness" that emerged when the Brexit referendum passed in 2016 with a "very narrow majority" in favour of leaving the EU, but insisted that issue cannot be revisited.

At present, the Good Friday Agreement states that a united Ireland can occur with the "agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".

Mr Paisley has proposed, specifically, a turnout requirement that would mean at least 50% of the total eligible electorate must vote in favour of a united Ireland for it to pass.

He also suggested "additional protections" could be added.

The North Antrim MP said: "It has long been recognised, including by figures such as Leo Varadkar, that 50% plus one is not a recipe for stability My Bill concurs and proposes that 50% plus one can only constitute a sufficient majority to end a union that has lasted for over two hundred years, if at least 50% of those entitled to vote, vote in this way. There should arguably be additional protections."

His Bill, Mr Paisley said, is intended to "facilitate a conversation" about how future constitutional referenda might work.

He explained: “I have been moved to take this step having witnessed the acrimony following the UK’s departure from the European Union on a very narrow majority.

"The sense of unhappiness following that decision, which only related to an external relationship which lasted less than 50 years, has set me thinking about what might happen in the event of referenda that would seek to terminate internal UK relationships that have been in place from between more than two hundred and twenty years, in the case of Northern Ireland, over three hundred years, in the case of Scotland, and nearly five hundred years, in the case of Wales and nearly five hundred years in the case of England.

“While we cannot revisit the Brexit referendum, it seems to me that going forward we need a much better understanding of what would constitute a fair expression of national consent for dissolving our United Kingdom.”

It'll be interesting to see who supports this; it could be a very difficult Bill for the Tories to handle.

[Tichtheid]

One of the foremost fuckwits in the HoC is trying to scupper any possibility of Independence for Scotland !


..... or re-unification for Ireland ....


It'll be interesting to see who supports this; it could be a very difficult Bill for the Tories to handle.

They did that jiggerypokery before in Scotland in 1979, a majority voted for devolution but the turnout was such that it didn't reach the statutory minimum that they dictated would be needed in terms of % of the registered electorate.

It won't stand again in Scotland.

I wish all of Ireland's citizens well in whatever course they want to set for themselves.

[robmatic]

One of the foremost fuckwits in the HoC is trying to scupper any possibility of Independence for Scotland !


..... or re-unification for Ireland ....


It'll be interesting to see who supports this; it could be a very difficult Bill for the Tories to handle.

They did that jiggerypokery before in Scotland in 1979, a majority voted for devolution but the turnout was such that it didn't reach the statutory minimum that they dictated would be needed in terms of % of the registered electorate.

It won't stand again in Scotland.

I wish all of Ireland's citizens well in whatever course they want to set for themselves.

It might be 'jiggerypokery', but a bare majority is an absolutely terrible mandate for self-determination. Establishing a new nation-state that only 50% + 1 of the population want is not a recipe for success. I'd agree that it means that the status quo is untenable though.

[Biffer]

One of the foremost fuckwits in the HoC is trying to scupper any possibility of Independence for Scotland !


..... or re-unification for Ireland ....


It'll be interesting to see who supports this; it could be a very difficult Bill for the Tories to handle.

They did that jiggerypokery before in Scotland in 1979, a majority voted for devolution but the turnout was such that it didn't reach the statutory minimum that they dictated would be needed in terms of % of the registered electorate.

It won't stand again in Scotland.

I wish all of Ireland's citizens well in whatever course they want to set for themselves.

It might be 'jiggerypokery', but a bare majority is an absolutely terrible mandate for self-determination. Establishing a new nation-state that only 50% + 1 of the population want is not a recipe for success. I'd agree that it means that the status quo is untenable though.

Is it right that the decision on the future of a country should be determined by a minority?

[robmatic]

They did that jiggerypokery before in Scotland in 1979, a majority voted for devolution but the turnout was such that it didn't reach the statutory minimum that they dictated would be needed in terms of % of the registered electorate.

It won't stand again in Scotland.

I wish all of Ireland's citizens well in whatever course they want to set for themselves.

It might be 'jiggerypokery', but a bare majority is an absolutely terrible mandate for self-determination. Establishing a new nation-state that only 50% + 1 of the population want is not a recipe for success. I'd agree that it means that the status quo is untenable though.

Is it right that the decision on the future of a country should be determined by a minority?

Minorities should certainly be taken into account, yes.

[Tichtheid]

If you’re going to mandate a super majority then voting should be obligatory, even if you spoil your ballot.

[clydecloggie]

Pro-Indy fuckwit Wings Over Scotland has been reinstated on Twitter after a 3-year ban. So far he's posted foul-mouthed tirades about SNP politicians and pictures of trans folk with unflattering comments.

I must admit I really enjoyed his work around the 2014 referendum when his m.o. was to dismantle Unionist arguments using evidence from pro-Union sources like UK Government documents. But as a total Salmond he followed his hero down the drain and is now little more than a sad wee caricature of the angry Scotsman.

[Biffer]

It might be 'jiggerypokery', but a bare majority is an absolutely terrible mandate for self-determination. Establishing a new nation-state that only 50% + 1 of the population want is not a recipe for success. I'd agree that it means that the status quo is untenable though.

Is it right that the decision on the future of a country should be determined by a minority?

Minorities should certainly be taken into account, yes.

Not the question. Should the minority be able to force the majority to go down their preferred path?

[Tichtheid]

Pro-Indy fuckwit Wings Over Scotland has been reinstated on Twitter after a 3-year ban. So far he's posted foul-mouthed tirades about SNP politicians and pictures of trans folk with unflattering comments.

I must admit I really enjoyed his work around the 2014 referendum when his m.o. was to dismantle Unionist arguments using evidence from pro-Union sources like UK Government documents. But as a total Salmond he followed his hero down the drain and is now little more than a sad wee caricature of the angry Scotsman.

I haven't kept up with him for a while, but Wee Ginger Dug was alway an interesting read, imo

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com

[robmatic]

Is it right that the decision on the future of a country should be determined by a minority?

Minorities should certainly be taken into account, yes.

Not the question. Should the minority be able to force the majority to go down their preferred path?

Probably not, but how is that relevant to what I said? My point is that a simple majority is a poor way of establishing an acceptable consensus. In the 2014 referendum, there was a majority against independence but it didn't exactly settle the issue, did it?

[fishfoodie]

Minorities should certainly be taken into account, yes.

Not the question. Should the minority be able to force the majority to go down their preferred path?

Probably not, but how is that relevant to what I said? My point is that a simple majority is a poor way of establishing an acceptable consensus. In the 2014 referendum, there was a majority against independence but it didn't exactly settle the issue, did it?

I tend to agree that a simple majority is pisspoor for such a significant vote; & I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't, because that's what I said before the Brexit poll !

But, one side doesn't get to move the goalposts (or just remove them entirely), just because all of a sudden their afraid of consequences. The DUP never engaged in the Belfast Agreement, at all !, so they can't now retrospectively bitch about the outcome, when they refused their opportunity to participate; it's like someone who never voted complaining about a policy, or Politician.

Our politicians had a surprisingly good idea a few years ago*, when they setup a large group of randomly selected citizens to participate in a consultation about a number of proposed Referendums, to first inform citizens of what was proposed, & then get their feedback on whether these changes actually resonated with them, or were they just fluff that populist politicians claimed were important (i.e. the citizens rejected a possible lowering of the voting age to 16 !), & to use this feedback to construct the Referendums, & make sure the question being asked, was the right one, & it's clear to the voters what the outcome will be.

Before any referendum in NI, I'd expect the UK & ROI to agree to something like this for this specific vote, & I think something like making voting mandatory, or saying that the vote on both sides of the border has to pass by a minimum gap, say 10%

* I say it was clever, but it was also deeply craven, as two of the votes on the slate were abortion, & same-sex marriage, & there were plenty of Politicians who didn't want to adopt a position on these.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Supreme court ruling being read out.

Ruling in favour of UK govt. Scottish gov't has no legal right to hold a referendum.

So, does this help the SNP, or not? On the face of it: no, but will be spun as a further restriction of the right to self-determination.

[inactionman]

Supreme court ruling being read out.

Ruling in favour of UK govt. Scottish gov't has no legal right to hold a referendum.

So, does this help the SNP, or not? On the face of it: no, but will be spun as a further restriction of the right to self-determination.

Oh, it'll be spun alright.

[tc27]

By design the devolved parliaments cannot legislate on reserved matters - the SNP were misleading people to suggest otherwise and their legal arguments in front of the court were very weak. No doubt some people will allow themselves to be whipped into a rage by this pantomime but it was always just for show.

I enjoyed the demolition of the 'colony' argument too...so tedious and borderline offensive considering history.



The SNP leadership will be massively relieved today whatever else they say.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

By design the devolved parliaments cannot legislate on reserved matters - the SNP were misleading people to suggest otherwise and their legal arguments in front of the court were very weak. No doubt some people will allow themselves to be whipped into a rage by this pantomime but it was always just for show.

I enjoyed the demolition of the 'colony' argument too...so tedious and borderline offensive considering history.



The SNP leadership will be massively relieved today whatever else they say.

So will the next idea of using the next GE as a 'de-facto' referendum be a success for the SNP? Will the average voter actually behave any differently? Given the support for independence seems to be about constant, and (even though some will tell you otherwise) people who support independence will almost all vote SNP anyway, I can't see it changing the political landscape at all (although there might be a downside risk for the SNP that some will turn to Labour). And given the legal ruling, there is no way it will do anything to actually deliver independence.

Which of course is probably what Sturgeon wants - a GE result that is pretty much guaranteed that she can point to as a 'referendum win' without actually having to actually win a referendum (because there is no guarantee she would).

[Biffer]

Supreme court ruling being read out.

Ruling in favour of UK govt. Scottish gov't has no legal right to hold a referendum.

So, does this help the SNP, or not? On the face of it: no, but will be spun as a further restriction of the right to self-determination.

‘Spun’?

This means that Scotland doesn’t have the right of self determination. That’s absolutely clear now.

[Paddington Bear]

Did anyone expect any different? Don't think there's a State in the developed world (or otherwise) that allows for secession. Sturgeon is a lawyer and knew this from the start.

[Biffer]

By design the devolved parliaments cannot legislate on reserved matters - the SNP were misleading people to suggest otherwise and their legal arguments in front of the court were very weak. No doubt some people will allow themselves to be whipped into a rage by this pantomime but it was always just for show.

I enjoyed the demolition of the 'colony' argument too...so tedious and borderline offensive considering history.



The SNP leadership will be massively relieved today whatever else they say.

So will the next idea of using the next GE as a 'de-facto' referendum be a success for the SNP? Will the average voter actually behave any differently? Given the support for independence seems to be about constant, and (even though some will tell you otherwise) people who support independence will almost all vote SNP anyway, I can't see it changing the political landscape at all (although there might be a downside risk for the SNP that some will turn to Labour). And given the legal ruling, there is no way it will do anything to actually deliver independence.

Which of course is probably what Sturgeon wants - a GE result that is pretty much guaranteed that she can point to as a 'referendum win' without actually having to actually win a referendum (because there is no guarantee she would).

Here we go, the old ‘support for independence is constant’ BS getting rolled out again.

What was support for independence 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago?

I’ll wait for you to go and look it up if you want.

[tc27]

The GE 'referendum' is nuts - getting over 50% of the total vote is a very high hurdle that the SNP struggled with even at their peak - if they do get it its legally meaningless - if they don't opponents can tell them they lost another referendum by their own definition.

[Paddington Bear]

The GE 'referendum' is nuts - getting over 50% of the total vote is a very high hurdle that the SNP struggled with even at their peak - if they do get it its legally meaningless - if they don't opponents can tell them they lost another referendum by their own definition.

It's ambiguous enough to claim victory based on any likely outcome of the GE and should shore up her vote. She knows it's a non-starter now but can't walk her supporters down off the mountain

[tc27]

Supreme court ruling being read out.

Ruling in favour of UK govt. Scottish gov't has no legal right to hold a referendum.

So, does this help the SNP, or not? On the face of it: no, but will be spun as a further restriction of the right to self-determination.

‘Spun’?

This means that Scotland doesn’t have the right of self determination. That’s absolutely clear now.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf

There are insuperable obstacles in the path of the intervener’s argument based
on self-determination. First, the principle of self-determination is simply not in play
here. The scope of the principle was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the
Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217. There, the Governor in Council
referred a series of questions to the Supreme Court including whether there exists a
right to self-determination under international law that would give Quebec the right to
secede unilaterally. In its judgment the Supreme Court explained (at paras 136-137)
that Canada was 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. It considered that the then current constitutional arrangements within
Canada did not place Quebecers in a disadvantaged position within the scope of the
international law rule. It continued:
“In summary, the international law right to selfdetermination only generates, at best, a right to external selfdetermination in situations of former colonies; where a
people is oppressed, as for example under foreign military
occupation; or where a definable group is denied
meaningful access to government to pursue their political,
economic, social and cultural development. In all three
situations, the people in question are entitled to a right to
external self-determination because they have been denied
the ability to exert internally their right to self-determination.
Such exceptional circumstances are manifestly inapplicable
to Quebec under existing conditions.” (at para 138)
It went on to say that in other circumstances peoples were expected to achieve selfdetermination within the framework of their existing state:
“A state whose government represents the whole of the
people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of
equality and without discrimination, and respects the
principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements,
is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under
international law and to have that territorial integrity
recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the
threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor
can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied
meaningful access to government to pursue their political,
economic, cultural and social development. In the
Page 33
circumstances, the National Assembly, the legislature or the
government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international
law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada
unilaterally.” (at para 154)
89. In our view these observations apply with equal force to the position of
Scotland and the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom. They are also
consistent with the United Kingdom’s submission to the International Court of Justice
in the case of Kosovo, adopted by the intervener as part of its submissions in the
present case: “To summarise, international law favours the territorial integrity of
“States. Outside the context of self-determination, normally limited to situations of
colonial type or those involving foreign occupation, it does not confer any ‘right to
secede’”: Written Proceedings in relation to UN General Assembly Resolution 63/3
(A/RES/63/3) (8 October 2008), Written Statement of the United Kingdom in response
to the Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the
Question, ‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions
of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?”, (17 April 2009),
para 5.33. The submission went on to state that international law does not, in general,
prohibit secession; but the relevant point, in relation to the intervener’s submission
based on a right of self-determination under international law, is the absence of
recognition of any such right outside the contexts described by the Supreme Court of
Canada, none of which applies to Scotland.
90. Secondly, the intervener relies on the principle of self-determination in
international law as an interpretative tool supporting a narrow reading of the words
“relates to” in section 29(2)(b) so as to give a more limited scope to the limitation of
legislative competence relating to reserved matters. However, no reading of that
subsection, whether wide or narrow, could result in a breach of the principle of selfdetermination in international law. The Scotland Act allocates powers between the
United Kingdom and Scotland as part of a constitutional settlement. It establishes a
carefully calibrated scheme of devolution powers. Nothing in the allocation of powers,
however widely or narrowly interpreted, infringes any principle of self-determination.
On the contrary, the legislation establishes and promotes a system of devolution
founded on principles of subsidiarity. It is now well established that devolution
legislation such as the Scotland Act falls to be interpreted like any other statute,
subject to the rules of interpretation set by the Act itself (see, for example, secti

[Biffer]

Supreme court ruling being read out.

Ruling in favour of UK govt. Scottish gov't has no legal right to hold a referendum.

So, does this help the SNP, or not? On the face of it: no, but will be spun as a further restriction of the right to self-determination.

‘Spun’?

This means that Scotland doesn’t have the right of self determination. That’s absolutely clear now.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf

There are insuperable obstacles in the path of the intervener’s argument based
on self-determination. First, the principle of self-determination is simply not in play
here. The scope of the principle was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the
Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217. There, the Governor in Council
referred a series of questions to the Supreme Court including whether there exists a
right to self-determination under international law that would give Quebec the right to
secede unilaterally. In its judgment the Supreme Court explained (at paras 136-137)
that Canada was 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. It considered that the then current constitutional arrangements within
Canada did not place Quebecers in a disadvantaged position within the scope of the
international law rule. It continued:
“In summary, the international law right to selfdetermination only generates, at best, a right to external selfdetermination in situations of former colonies; where a
people is oppressed, as for example under foreign military
occupation; or where a definable group is denied
meaningful access to government to pursue their political,
economic, social and cultural development. In all three
situations, the people in question are entitled to a right to
external self-determination because they have been denied
the ability to exert internally their right to self-determination.
Such exceptional circumstances are manifestly inapplicable
to Quebec under existing conditions.” (at para 138)
It went on to say that in other circumstances peoples were expected to achieve selfdetermination within the framework of their existing state:
“A state whose government represents the whole of the
people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of
equality and without discrimination, and respects the
principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements,
is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under
international law and to have that territorial integrity
recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the
threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor
can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied
meaningful access to government to pursue their political,
economic, cultural and social development. In the
Page 33
circumstances, the National Assembly, the legislature or the
government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international
law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada
unilaterally.” (at para 154)
89. In our view these observations apply with equal force to the position of
Scotland and the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom. They are also
consistent with the United Kingdom’s submission to the International Court of Justice
in the case of Kosovo, adopted by the intervener as part of its submissions in the
present case: “To summarise, international law favours the territorial integrity of
“States. Outside the context of self-determination, normally limited to situations of
colonial type or those involving foreign occupation, it does not confer any ‘right to
secede’”: Written Proceedings in relation to UN General Assembly Resolution 63/3
(A/RES/63/3) (8 October 2008), Written Statement of the United Kingdom in response
to the Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the
Question, ‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions
of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?”, (17 April 2009),
para 5.33. The submission went on to state that international law does not, in general,
prohibit secession; but the relevant point, in relation to the intervener’s submission
based on a right of self-determination under international law, is the absence of
recognition of any such right outside the contexts described by the Supreme Court of
Canada, none of which applies to Scotland.
90. Secondly, the intervener relies on the principle of self-determination in
international law as an interpretative tool supporting a narrow reading of the words
“relates to” in section 29(2)(b) so as to give a more limited scope to the limitation of
legislative competence relating to reserved matters. However, no reading of that
subsection, whether wide or narrow, could result in a breach of the principle of selfdetermination in international law. The Scotland Act allocates powers between the
United Kingdom and Scotland as part of a constitutional settlement. It establishes a
carefully calibrated scheme of devolution powers. Nothing in the allocation of powers,
however widely or narrowly interpreted, infringes any principle of self-determination.
On the contrary, the legislation establishes and promotes a system of devolution
founded on principles of subsidiarity. It is now well established that devolution
legislation such as the Scotland Act falls to be interpreted like any other statute,
subject to the rules of interpretation set by the Act itself (see, for example, secti

You realise what you’ve quoted there literally says there’s no right to self determination, right?

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Supreme court ruling being read out.

Ruling in favour of UK govt. Scottish gov't has no legal right to hold a referendum.

So, does this help the SNP, or not? On the face of it: no, but will be spun as a further restriction of the right to self-determination.

‘Spun’?

This means that Scotland doesn’t have the right of self determination. That’s absolutely clear now.

Honest question: do you think that if there was a consistent demonstrable appetite by a clear majority of the population for independence, then Westminster might have a different view? Like, for example, several separate opinion polls that consistently (over period of a year at least) give a positive result of, say, 60% in favour?

At the moment, we definitely do not have that situation. There was a run of polls between August 20 and Jan 21 that gave Yes a lead, and again between March and April 21, but since then any polls that show a lead for Yes are one-offs. So there is not a demonstrable desire for a clear majority of the population to be independent. What is clear is that referenda that are not clear cut lead to a pretty unsatisfactory situation (see both Brexit (obvs) and the first Indyref: even with 55% voting No, the issue hasn't been put to bed).

[Biffer]

Supreme court ruling being read out.

Ruling in favour of UK govt. Scottish gov't has no legal right to hold a referendum.

So, does this help the SNP, or not? On the face of it: no, but will be spun as a further restriction of the right to self-determination.

‘Spun’?

This means that Scotland doesn’t have the right of self determination. That’s absolutely clear now.

Honest question: do you think that if there was a consistent demonstrable appetite by a clear majority of the population for independence, then Westminster might have a different view? Like, for example, several separate opinion polls that consistently (over period of a year at least) give a positive result of, say, 60% in favour?

At the moment, we definitely do not have that situation. There was a run of polls between August 20 and Jan 21 that gave Yes a lead, and again between March and April 21, but since then any polls that show a lead for Yes are one-offs. So there is not a demonstrable desire for a clear majority of the population to be independent. What is clear is that referenda that are not clear cut lead to a pretty unsatisfactory situation (see both Brexit (obvs) and the first Indyref: even with 55% voting No, the issue hasn't been put to bed).

No, I don’t.

[tc27]

Biffer - its more naunced - the judgement says there is a right to self-determination but it has a specific legal meaning that does not apply to Scotland (or Quebec). I honestly cant see how the definition could be construed as unreasonable either.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

By design the devolved parliaments cannot legislate on reserved matters - the SNP were misleading people to suggest otherwise and their legal arguments in front of the court were very weak. No doubt some people will allow themselves to be whipped into a rage by this pantomime but it was always just for show.

I enjoyed the demolition of the 'colony' argument too...so tedious and borderline offensive considering history.



The SNP leadership will be massively relieved today whatever else they say.

So will the next idea of using the next GE as a 'de-facto' referendum be a success for the SNP? Will the average voter actually behave any differently? Given the support for independence seems to be about constant, and (even though some will tell you otherwise) people who support independence will almost all vote SNP anyway, I can't see it changing the political landscape at all (although there might be a downside risk for the SNP that some will turn to Labour). And given the legal ruling, there is no way it will do anything to actually deliver independence.

Which of course is probably what Sturgeon wants - a GE result that is pretty much guaranteed that she can point to as a 'referendum win' without actually having to actually win a referendum (because there is no guarantee she would).

Here we go, the old ‘support for independence is constant’ BS getting rolled out again.

What was support for independence 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago?

I’ll wait for you to go and look it up if you want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... dependence

There's a chart in there that shows the polls since 2014. Doesn't look like a significant shift to me. Yes, there's a trend towards more support for Yes between 2017 and 2020, but you can ague that has been mostly reversed since.

Now, the situation 20 years ago isn't really relevant, except insofar as to demonstrate that long-term trends can shift. So I refer you to my other post about what Westminster's position might be about a referendum if there is a constant, demonstrable, desire for independence, in a clear majority of the population over a decent period of time?

In the meantime, 'support for independence is constant' doesn't look like BS, at least over the last 8 years. You may have a different interpretation, of course, and maybe some different data, which perhaps you could share?

[Biffer]

Biffer - its more naunced - the judgement says there is a right to self-determination but it has a specific legal meaning that does not apply to Scotland (or Quebec). I honestly cant see how the definition could be construed as unreasonable either.

So, under the law of the UK (and International treaties as they stand), Scotland does not have a right to self determination. There is a right to self determination but it only applies to oppressed people, former colonies and where a definable group’s access to government is limited. And Scotland doesn’t qualify. So Scotland doesn’t have a right to self determination.

This is a yes / no question - does Scotland have a right to self determination. And the answer is no.

The only way it could be argued is that Scotland’s votes to Westminster have no effect - we get a Labour government when England votes Labour and a Conservative government when England votes Conservative (if you don’t believe this, go back and check). I can see an argument that could be had about whether that is meaningful access, but I doubt it would hold much water. There’s no right of appeal anyway so we can never get a judgement on that.

[Biffer]

So will the next idea of using the next GE as a 'de-facto' referendum be a success for the SNP? Will the average voter actually behave any differently? Given the support for independence seems to be about constant, and (even though some will tell you otherwise) people who support independence will almost all vote SNP anyway, I can't see it changing the political landscape at all (although there might be a downside risk for the SNP that some will turn to Labour). And given the legal ruling, there is no way it will do anything to actually deliver independence.

Which of course is probably what Sturgeon wants - a GE result that is pretty much guaranteed that she can point to as a 'referendum win' without actually having to actually win a referendum (because there is no guarantee she would).

Here we go, the old ‘support for independence is constant’ BS getting rolled out again.

What was support for independence 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago?

I’ll wait for you to go and look it up if you want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... dependence

There's a chart in there that shows the polls since 2014. Doesn't look like a significant shift to me. Yes, there's a trend towards more support for Yes between 2017 and 2020, but you can ague that has been mostly reversed since.

Now, the situation 20 years ago isn't really relevant, except insofar as to demonstrate that long-term trends can shift. So I refer you to my other post about what Westminster's position might be about a referendum if there is a constant, demonstrable, desire for independence, in a clear majority of the population over a decent period of time?

In the meantime, 'support for independence is constant' doesn't look like BS, at least over the last 8 years. You may have a different interpretation, of course, and maybe some different data, which perhaps you could share?

Four years before referendum - four polls in favour of independence.
Four years after referendum - twelve in favour
Four years since then - 41 in favour

And if you go back to the nineties and naughtiest, Indy support ran at twenty something, then thirty something percent. There a swings back and forth with politics of the time but the trend is undeniably towards independence over the longer term. It’s slow, but that’s the way it’s going.

I answered your other question. They wouldn’t.

[Paddington Bear]

Biffer - its more naunced - the judgement says there is a right to self-determination but it has a specific legal meaning that does not apply to Scotland (or Quebec). I honestly cant see how the definition could be construed as unreasonable either.

So, under the law of the UK (and International treaties as they stand), Scotland does not have a right to self determination. There is a right to self determination but it only applies to oppressed people, former colonies and where a definable group’s access to government is limited. And Scotland doesn’t qualify. So Scotland doesn’t have a right to self determination.

This is a yes / no question - does Scotland have a right to self determination. And the answer is no.

The only way it could be argued is that Scotland’s votes to Westminster have no effect - we get a Labour government when England votes Labour and a Conservative government when England votes Conservative (if you don’t believe this, go back and check). I can see an argument that could be had about whether that is meaningful access, but I doubt it would hold much water. There’s no right of appeal anyway so we can never get a judgement on that.

Sturgeon and anyone else with half a brain around her knew this from the start, the case can only be seen as either/both trying to kick the issue into touch or manufacture outrage. Your last point is a political one that wouldn't get anywhere in a court, we both know it was politically unacceptable to both but the SNP held the balance of power in the HoC during May's minority government. Having access is different to not using it. Given the points they did run with (comparing to Kosovo etc) you can only assume any argument they didn't run with was because they knew how incredibly weak it was.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Here we go, the old ‘support for independence is constant’ BS getting rolled out again.

What was support for independence 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ago?

I’ll wait for you to go and look it up if you want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... dependence

There's a chart in there that shows the polls since 2014. Doesn't look like a significant shift to me. Yes, there's a trend towards more support for Yes between 2017 and 2020, but you can ague that has been mostly reversed since.

Now, the situation 20 years ago isn't really relevant, except insofar as to demonstrate that long-term trends can shift. So I refer you to my other post about what Westminster's position might be about a referendum if there is a constant, demonstrable, desire for independence, in a clear majority of the population over a decent period of time?

In the meantime, 'support for independence is constant' doesn't look like BS, at least over the last 8 years. You may have a different interpretation, of course, and maybe some different data, which perhaps you could share?

Four years before referendum - four polls in favour of independence.
Four years after referendum - twelve in favour
Four years since then - 41 in favour

And if you go back to the nineties and naughtiest, Indy support ran at twenty something, then thirty something percent. There a swings back and forth with politics of the time but the trend is undeniably towards independence over the longer term. It’s slow, but that’s the way it’s going.

I answered your other question. They wouldn’t.

I can count too, and without a bit of context '41 polls in favour' doesn't mean anything. About 80 polls in favour of No in the same period (give or take a couple, quick count but you get the idea).
(Also, pedantic point, only about 12 of those polls in favour of independence actually showed any kind of majority for independence, the others showed a leading minority in support.)

However, if you believe there is a long-term groundswell in favour of independence that will inevitably grow into a clear majority, then why not just wait? Why push for a referendum now, which the SNP has no guarantee of winning, and even if it did (likely with a tiny majority), would just lead to a level of rancour that would dwarf the fallout from Brexit? FWIW I disagree with you that a Westminster government would never allow another referendum. If the SNP can show a clear unequivocal support for independence in Scotland over a decent period of time, Westminster can't ignore that forever.

Or is now the moment (because support for independence might go the same way it did in Quebec)?

[Tichtheid]

You realise what you’ve quoted there literally says there’s no right to self determination, right?

If one wanted a particular outcome or situation to rest entirely at one's own whim, then one would set up a series of statutes, mechanisms and actors who have been conditioned to act or interpret in a predictable manner, in order to create a status quo that cannot be challenged from without, only at one's own behest.

The people who live in Scotland have no right to decide for themselves how they want to be governed, this judgements states that there is no legal arrangement for the voters in Scotland to act on their own, they must only be allowed to do so at the whim of the UK government.

[petej]

The union needs the Tories out of government.
The divide and conquer, ageist, English nationalist political games of the Tories are undermining the union. Then combined with massive levels of incompetence over the last decade . Also having been exposed to a fairer electoral system in the devolved governments FPTP and Westminster look awful and childish and the argument that alternatives are too complex just seems patronising.

I'm not Welsh but looking at the tidal wave of corruption, incompetence, childishness and shit emanating from Westminster and Fleet Street does make you consider things like independence.

[Biffer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... dependence

There's a chart in there that shows the polls since 2014. Doesn't look like a significant shift to me. Yes, there's a trend towards more support for Yes between 2017 and 2020, but you can ague that has been mostly reversed since.

Now, the situation 20 years ago isn't really relevant, except insofar as to demonstrate that long-term trends can shift. So I refer you to my other post about what Westminster's position might be about a referendum if there is a constant, demonstrable, desire for independence, in a clear majority of the population over a decent period of time?

In the meantime, 'support for independence is constant' doesn't look like BS, at least over the last 8 years. You may have a different interpretation, of course, and maybe some different data, which perhaps you could share?

Four years before referendum - four polls in favour of independence.
Four years after referendum - twelve in favour
Four years since then - 41 in favour

And if you go back to the nineties and naughtiest, Indy support ran at twenty something, then thirty something percent. There a swings back and forth with politics of the time but the trend is undeniably towards independence over the longer term. It’s slow, but that’s the way it’s going.

I answered your other question. They wouldn’t.

I can count too, and without a bit of context '41 polls in favour' doesn't mean anything. About 80 polls in favour of No in the same period (give or take a couple, quick count but you get the idea).
(Also, pedantic point, only about 12 of those polls in favour of independence actually showed any kind of majority for independence, the others showed a leading minority in support.)

However, if you believe there is a long-term groundswell in favour of independence that will inevitably grow into a clear majority, then why not just wait? Why push for a referendum now, which the SNP has no guarantee of winning, and even if it did (likely with a tiny majority), would just lead to a level of rancour that would dwarf the fallout from Brexit? FWIW I disagree with you that a Westminster government would never allow another referendum. If the SNP can show a clear unequivocal support for independence in Scotland over a decent period of time, Westminster can't ignore that forever.

Or is now the moment (because support for independence might go the same way it did in Quebec)?

Your blind faith in Westminster’s goodwill is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

I’m impatient for independence because I want to get on a change our country into a progressive modern European social democracy, instead of this backwards looking imperial relic I currently have to live in.

[Biffer]

The union needs the Tories out of government.
The divide and conquer, ageist, English nationalist political games of the Tories are undermining the union. Then combined with massive levels of incompetence over the last decade . Also having been exposed to a fairer electoral system in the devolved governments FPTP and Westminster look awful and childish and the argument that alternatives are too complex just seems patronising.

I'm not Welsh but looking at the tidal wave of corruption, incompetence, childishness and shit emanating from Westminster and Fleet Street does make you consider things like independence.

In Scotland we haven’t voted them into power in nearly 70 years. Personally I’m fed up of waiting for the rest of you to catch up. Even if they’re voted out next time round we know England will probably vote them back in the next time. What’s the point of carrying on as part of that?