Scotland (Political Thread)

[dmereifield]

they are having marches throughout skirtland every week according to family i have in Scotchland, they say the poisoned dwarf is only a few months away from calling another referendum

I can't see May allowing another referendum until she's got Brexit in to the rearview mirror.

Indeed, there would also have to be significant and sustained support for one North of the border, which is not yet materialising (according to opinion polls). That may change (or not) depending on the outcome of the negotiations. I suspect, however, that in the unlikely event of a second referendum, May won't be the PM. She is on borrowed time

[Pseudo]

Indeed, there would also have to be significant and sustained support for one North of the border, which is not yet materialising (according to opinion polls). That may change (or not) depending on the outcome of the negotiations. I suspect, however, that in the unlikely event of a second referendum, May won't be the PM. She is on borrowed time

Probably. I think she's on a fairly solid footing until things start to fall apart post-Brexit. The parliamentary party is completely divided by the issue and there seems to be more interest in complaining about her handling of it than there is in doing anything about it.

[FuNsTeR]

they are having marches throughout skirtland every week according to family i have in Scotchland, they say the poisoned dwarf is only a few months away from calling another referendum

I can't see May allowing another referendum until she's got Brexit in to the rearview mirror.

remember their is a legal ruling in october in regards to brexit if the sweaties win it and May over rules it and does the power grab then if May blocks a referendum, we could be faced with them holding one regardless or call for the dissolution of the union, between them and the greens they hold the majority of jock mps and msps in westminster and holyrood and the union is a signatory between England and scotland they can then cite that they are no longer equal partners in the UK then the union will be finished, skirtland can leave the union as they please just like we have done with the EU with brexit, scotland is not catalonia my friends

[Caribbean]

What "power grab" - sorry, honest question, there's been so much hyberbolic language used since the referendum that I've lost track (and I've been following a lot of it from the other side of the Atlantic, where it's largely regarded with supreme indifference - hard as that may be for some to accept!)

If the Scottish Labour MPs vote for the dissolution of the Union, they will be a minority in Parliament (and the Labour Party will probably tear itself apart, since they will probably impose a three-line whip on the vote - as will the other Unionist parties). Since Parliament IS sovereign within the UK, that would only leave the Catalan option, meaning either an illegal vote by a subordinate legislature, or an illegal referendum, both of which would get no support or recognition from the EU (too many of their own similar issues to be seen to support that) and very little sympathy within the UN (I suspect that even Russia and China would say little, as they have their own separatist movements to contain).

[FuNsTeR]

What "power grab" - sorry, honest question, there's been so much hyberbolic language used since the referendum that I've lost track (and I've been following a lot of it from the other side of the Atlantic, where it's largely regarded with supreme indifference - hard as that may be for some to accept!)

If the Scottish Labour MPs vote for the dissolution of the Union, they will be a minority in Parliament (and the Labour Party will probably tear itself apart, since they will probably impose a three-line whip on the vote - as will the other Unionist parties). Since Parliament IS sovereign within the UK, that would only leave the Catalan option, meaning either an illegal vote by a subordinate legislature, or an illegal referendum, both of which would get no support or recognition from the EU (too many of their own similar issues to be seen to support that) and very little sympathy within the UN (I suspect that even Russia and China would say little, as they have their own separatist movements to contain).

the Brexit vote was a consultative referendum, the jocks have the power to hold a consultative referendum, the eu would welcome them with open arms to spite the rest of the UK.
the power grab is about taking 22 powers away from the scotch parliament the jock parliament has the support of Scotch law in regards to there brexit bill, here it becomes dangerous may has taken the scotch government to the English courts under the act of union scotch law cannot be over ruled by English law and vice versa so if the English courts rules in May's/UK government's favour then the tory government is in violation of the act of union and if the scotch government wins and may grabs the powers then she is in violation of the act of union as well.
This bill has the support of the snp, scotch greens, scotch labour and scotch lib dems in the scotch parliament the MPs of the last 3 parties in Westminster are not part of the deal the snp have 35 of the 59 scotch MPs in Westminster and them and the scotch greens hold the majority in the scotch parliament thus they could decree the Union is dissolved if there referendum is not recognised

[Caribbean]

the eu would welcome them with open arms to spite the rest of the UK

I refer you to my previous comments on the Catalan issue. Spain would veto any attempt at bringing Scotland into the EU (IIRC, they've already said that). Belgium has similar issues.

the jocks have the power to hold a consultative referendum

Not on the subject of devolution. Devolution is reserved to the UK Government. They can hold one, but it has no legal force and would grant no legal authority.

if the English courts rules in May's/UK government's favour then the tory government is in violation of the act of union and if the scotch government wins and may grabs the powers then she is in violation of the act of union as well

Thanks for the additional info, I'm with you now!. I would disagree on your interpretation of the consequences of "May" (it would actually be Parliament) "grabbing power". Firstly, the Supreme Court is the UK's Supreme Court, not England's - you can appeal a case from the Court of Session to the Supreme Court in Westminster. If it rules on this case, it will simply rule that the Scottish and Welsh "Continuity Bills" fall either inside or outside the powers devolved to the respective devolved legislatures (the Welsh have been referred 3 times already. Won two and lost one). If it deems that they fall outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament, then anything done by the Scottish Parliament has no legal effect - this is something that the parties involved in the agreement to create the Scottish Parliament agreed to.

There are actually two Acts of Union (one English and one Scottish) and the Treaty of Union. The Acts give the Treaty legal force within the respective legal systems. The Treaty only says that the legal system in Scotland and England and Wales will remain separate and that the Court of Sessions will stay in Scotland. The Treaty also says that there is only one Parliament in Great Britain and that it sits at Westminster (and the Scots get 16 Lords and 45 MPs). The Parliament of Great Britain replaced the Parliaments of both England (and Wales) and Scotland, incorporating all their powers, amongst which was the function of final Court of Appeal. It has long been fact that the judicial committee of the House of Lord, now the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, is superior to the Court of Sessions, just as the ECJ is (currently) superior to the UK's Supreme Court - there is no "imposing English law on Scotland".

In practical terms, Scotland could, of course, unilaterally declare itself independent - I doubt the Government would send in the Army, but the UK Government would be entitled to take legal action against those that voted for it, in the same way that the Spanish Government has against the members of the Catalan Parliament. The consequences of removing itself from the EU, the Union and effectively ALL trading agreements with the rest of the world, all international agreements signed in the name of the United Kingdom etc. etc. would be, I suspect, quite onerous for many years to come. Far better to do it the legal way.

And, of course, it would still all be the fault of the English!

[FuNsTeR]

the eu would welcome them with open arms to spite the rest of the UK

I refer you to my previous comments on the Catalan issue. Spain would veto any attempt at bringing Scotland into the EU (IIRC, they've already said that). Belgium has similar issues.

the jocks have the power to hold a consultative referendum

Not on the subject of devolution. Devolution is reserved to the UK Government. They can hold one, but it has no legal force and would grant no legal authority.

if the English courts rules in May's/UK government's favour then the tory government is in violation of the act of union and if the scotch government wins and may grabs the powers then she is in violation of the act of union as well

Thanks for the additional info, I'm with you now!. I would disagree on your interpretation of the consequences of "May" (it would actually be Parliament) "grabbing power". Firstly, the Supreme Court is the UK's Supreme Court, not England's - you can appeal a case from the Court of Session to the Supreme Court in Westminster. If it rules on this case, it will simply rule that the Scottish and Welsh "Continuity Bills" fall either inside or outside the powers devolved to the respective devolved legislatures (the Welsh have been referred 3 times already. Won two and lost one). If it deems that they fall outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament, then anything done by the Scottish Parliament has no legal effect - this is something that the parties involved in the agreement to create the Scottish Parliament agreed to.

There are actually two Acts of Union (one English and one Scottish) and the Treaty of Union. The Acts give the Treaty legal force within the respective legal systems. The Treaty only says that the legal system in Scotland and England and Wales will remain separate and that the Court of Sessions will stay in Scotland. The Treaty also says that there is only one Parliament in Great Britain and that it sits at Westminster (and the Scots get 16 Lords and 45 MPs). The Parliament of Great Britain replaced the Parliaments of both England (and Wales) and Scotland, incorporating all their powers, amongst which was the function of final Court of Appeal. It has long been fact that the judicial committee of the House of Lord, now the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, is superior to the Court of Sessions, just as the ECJ is (currently) superior to the UK's Supreme Court - there is no "imposing English law on Scotland".

In practical terms, Scotland could, of course, unilaterally declare itself independent - I doubt the Government would send in the Army, but the UK Government would be entitled to take legal action against those that voted for it, in the same way that the Spanish Government has against the members of the Catalan Parliament. The consequences of removing itself from the EU, the Union and effectively ALL trading agreements with the rest of the world, all international agreements signed in the name of the United Kingdom etc. etc. would be, I suspect, quite onerous for many years to come. Far better to do it the legal way.

And, of course, it would still all be the fault of the English!

the UK court is the English court it has no jurisdiction over scotch law, we are standing on dangerous grounds and the UK cannot take scotch politicians to court as the union which can be dissolved, the UK is not Spain we are a union between England and scotchland.

a new poll has been conducted by Best for Britain has yes at 47% and no at 43% if uk takes the scotch out of the EU and it's virtually neck and neck if we remain in the EU, so if the majority of scotch vote yes in a consultative referendum the result cannot be ignored

here is the spanish and german opinion

[Caribbean]

the UK court is the English court it has no jurisdiction over scotch law

Sorry - factually incorrect. The Supreme Court is the final Court of Appeal WITHIN the United Kingdom, for both the Scottish and English legal systems. Further appeals could be made to the ECJ, which also has jurisdiction over Scots law. It's more limited in the Criminal Court system, but in the Civil system (which would hear this case), there are no limitations on the authority of the UK Supreme Court.

the UK cannot take scotch politicians to court

I think that you will find that the UK Government CAN take anyone it wants to Court. Westminster is the Parliament of the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain (which is the legal name for the united Scotland and England - note it's also singular "Kingdom") and now, after the Acts of Union in 1800, Northern Ireland, so it is sovereign within the United Kingdom. And, like it or not, the UK Government is the Government of the entire United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Irish Local Assemblies are both subordinate to the UK Parliament and are, in reality, more overgrown county councils, rather than genuine Parliaments.

I think that you are making the mistake of thinking that England and Scotland are separate nations in an alliance of some sort. We are not - we are two countries united as a single NATION - that was the whole purpose of the Treaty of Union - it was intended to merge the Crowns, the Parliaments, the countries, the Churches (that bit didn't stick) and the populations into a single NATION. The legal system was only really left out because it was just thought to be too difficult to merge two different bodies of legal precedent and principle, built up over many hundreds of years. It was also very good for Scotland, reeling after the Darien fiasco and seven years of bad harvests, largely agrarian and with little industry to speak of - in return for the Union, they gained access to English markets and colonies, which transformed their economy.

the union which can be dissolved,

Not according to the Treaty of Union, it can't

"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain."

In reality, of course, it can be, but it's better if done legally.

I'm not against the Scots going their own way if they want to, but far better to do it in a way that minimises the damage that would be caused to the country.

[FuNsTeR]

Not according to the Treaty of Union, it can't

"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain."

In reality, of course, it can be, but it's better if done legally.

I'm not against the Scots going their own way if they want to, but far better to do it in a way that minimises the damage that would be caused to the country.

we cannot force them to remain with the UK, and in the long run all it's going to do is increase the animosity, 10 years ago i believed we were a united people on this island, everytime i go up there to visit family, it does not feel like Britain to me and i don't know if i want them to be part of Great Britain anymore

[ArmChairCivvy]

Haven't followed so closely, which round is this one now, beginning? The bell just rang for the previous round (as per the statement below)
"In a statement, Police Scotland said: "We can confirm a 64 year-old man has been arrested and charged and a report has been sent to the procurator fiscal."

The specific charge against Mr Salmond has so far not been confirmed.

Mr Salmond earlier this month won his legal action against the Scottish government over their handling of an investigation into the harassment complaints."
quote from Sky News of today

[SKB]

Burn's Night in jail perhaps? "Poetic Justice".

[T-Force]

no amount of hum and hoeing from May, Hunt and Johnson can stop the inevitable, Scotland will be leaving the UK, there is nothing the UK can do to stop it, Scotland will not be a member of NATO due to the rest of the UK being told to remove Trident and the nukes from Scotland within 3 to 4 years of leaving the UK, NATO would hit Scot Gov with a ultimatum if you don't keep Trident fleet at Faslane = No NATO membership.

No government in Scotland would be elected backing Trident remaining in Scotland


oh The SNP are not the Independence movement they are just a part of it like the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Socialists

[SKB]

Only the Monarch is sovereign. Intentionally depriving the Monarch of Her/His lands is considered High Treason and is still punishable by life imprisonment. (Although it was punishable by death before 1998)

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign. They are nations, not actual countries. There is no England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in the United Nations.

Scotland did not have a Scotland-only referendum on its EU membership, it was an entire UK one which counted all Scottish votes as part of one overall UK count.

Scotland is only one of twelve European Union Parliament constituencies within the UK. Scotland is not a seperate EU member on its own terms, its a UK constituency in the EU Parliament.

Nicola Sturgeon is not Prime Minister of Scotland and is not the head of state. Her powers are basically the same as those of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, or Wale's Mark Drakeford.

Holyrood is subservient to Westminster, which has devolved some (not all) powers to Holyrood.

Nicola Sturgeon's paternal grandmother is from Sunderland. So she's not as Scottish as she claims then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Sturgeon

[Qwerty]

Faslane would become a Sovereign Base Area.

[clivestonehouse1]

Faslane would become a Sovereign Base Area.

That is a possibility but Scotland doesn't want Trident and never did.
Faslsne is a manky mosquito ridden hole anyway.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[SKB]

Annex them into England.

[clivestonehouse1]

England could invade Scotland and rename it Upper England



Sorry Scotland





Not really

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[T-Force]

Faslane would become a Sovereign Base Area.

that would be a very big mistake, Scotland would not support your claim to be the UK's successor thus you would lose the permanent seat on the UN security council

[SKB]

UK security council

....

[Pseudo]

Faslane would become a Sovereign Base Area.

that would be a very big mistake, Scotland would not support your claim to be the UK's successor thus you would lose the permanent seat on the UK security council

Scotland's support wouldn't be necessary as the UK would continue to exist, the only change would be that Scotland would have left the UK and become an independent state. There might have to be a minor name change, but The United Kingdom of Greater Britain and Northern Ireland has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

[R686]

Faslane would become a Sovereign Base Area.

that would be a very big mistake, Scotland would not support your claim to be the UK's successor thus you would lose the permanent seat on the UK security council

Scotland's support wouldn't be necessary as the UK would continue to exist, the only change would be that Scotland would have left the UK and become an independent state. There might have to be a minor name change, but The United Kingdom of Greater Britain and Northern Ireland has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

I don't see Northern Ireland being part of the UK post Brexit, and they have an actual mechanism to leave.

[Pseudo]

I don't see Northern Ireland being part of the UK post Brexit, and they have an actual mechanism to leave.

That's nice for you, but this discussion is about Scotland leaving the UK irrespective of whether the UK leaves or remains in the EU.

[Caribbean]

I don't see Northern Ireland being part of the UK post Brexit, and they have an actual mechanism to leave.

Hopefully the Republic will be able to get the £9.1 billion that NI costs the English taxpayer from the EU! Just as the UK stops paying the (net) £9b to the EU, of course. Scotland will also move from being a net beneficiary (currently, though not always in the past) within the Union to a net contributor in the EU.

[SKB]

England found itself without a monarch when Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603 and needed one quickly, because the English people wanted one.

Scotland had King James VI, but he had no money. Why? Scotland was envious of England's colonial expansion and wealth, so they tried it too. The Scots chose to colonise Panama, thinking they could profit from the short over-land Atlantic to Pacific trade route taxation. And while they were there, sell Scottish sheep wool to the natives of Panama. So the Scots invested almost their entire national wealth into their early colonial expansion attempt.

The natives of Panama lived in very hot humid conditions and obviously didn't need any wool for warmth, so they didn't buy any. And the land between the two oceans that Scotland thought they could profit from was filled with mountains so tall that they made the Scottish Highlands look like ant hills. The Scots had never seen such tall mountains before which proved impassable and were filled with deadly jungle dwelling diseases that killed the Scots colonists.

England, needing the best from the available list of Kings around at the time, chose broke King James VI over accepting a French or Spanish monarch. So the two Kingdom's were joined in 1606 and politically (under Queen Anne) in 1707.

So if Scotland quits, then England is surely entltled to a full refund from paying off Scotland's debts?

And where is that reciept kept?!

[Scimitar54]

SKB Wrote[quote]Only the Monarch is sovereign. Intentionally depriving the Monarch of Her/His lands is considered High Treason and is still punishable by life imprisonment. (Although it was punishable by death before 1998).

Those who reduce the penalty for something invariably do so, because they want to commit that crime themselves.
The Death Penalty for Treason should still be in force. It is a disgrace that it was so reduced.