[News] Sturgeon et al lose indyref2 court case

[A1X]

Time and time again, nationalist governments end up being so distracted by their singular vision of the panacea that the rest of the country goes wrong around them. Sturgeon might hate it, but there are many similarities with the Tories of 2016-2020. So obsessed with their nationalist project that the day-to-day gets out to one side, until it’s too late.

 

[beorhthelm]

A tiny economy, gained by being a tax haven for cheats such as Dell. Which the EU Commission was furious about. That plus colossal grants created the Celtic Tiger.

would be a great irony if Scotland went down the low tax route to growth.

 

[Weststander]

would be a great irony if Scotland went down the low tax route to growth.

I thought the same thing. A devout Socialist, desperate for jobs and tax revenues, allowing tax avoiding multinationals in from the US.

[For those unaware, Ireland, Lux and Netherlands all have tiny corporation rates for non-EU multinationals basing their HQ there. Allowing the likes of Dell, Starbucks, Amazon, Apple and Twitter to pay bugger all tax on their entire EU and UK gross or net income].

 

[BadFish]

Personally, I think another referendum is appropriate given the change in circumstances regarding the EU.

Another referendum at this point seems entirely reasonable.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Personally, I think another referendum is appropriate given the change in circumstances regarding the EU.

Another referendum at this point seems entirely reasonable.

No.

 

[BadFish]

No.

Yes . . . that is what I think

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes . . . that is what I think

Differences of opinion are not allo....oh, hang on.

Call me parochial, but at the end of the day, I'm only interested in whether Joxit makes it more or less likely that the tory hegemony in England will continue. All the while the SNP get all the Scottish seats in England's parliament, it hardly seems to matter. To me.

 

[BadFish]

Differences of opinion are not allo....oh, hang on.

Call me parochial, but at the end of the day, I'm only interested in whether Joxit makes it more or less likely that the tory hegemony in England will continue. All the while the SNP get all the Scottish seats in England's parliament, it hardly seems to matter. To me.

I would agree, it really doesn't matter to me much either. I don't have a dog in the race in any sense.

I can just see the logic of another referendum if there is reasonable evidence that things have changed significantly. In this case I believe there is a very reasonable chance they have.

 

[Randy McNob]

imagine the furore if the EU said rhe UK couldn;t vote to leave, surely those judges are the enemies of the scottish people?

 

[Swansman]

Sturgeon needs to read this and understand what it means

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf?shiftFileName=articlesofunion.pdf&shiftSavePath=/documents/heritage

Union with England Act 1707

Act Ratifying and Approving the Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of SCOTLAND and ENGLAND

www.legislation.gov.uk

There is nothing in the Act of Union about leaving.

Not sure there was anything in the agreement between Russia and Ukraine, in the Roman Empire or in the Ottoman Empire that said "you can come and go as you please". Yet that happened, and I don't see that many in here proposing that the Russian Empire/Soviet Union or the Roman Empire should be re-established.

If the Scots want independence, of course they should get it.

 

[Bozza]

If the Scots want independence, of course they should get it.

They don't though. We asked them and they said "No thanks, we're all good as we are."

Or are you in the "Just keep asking until they say 'yes'" camp?

 

[PeterT]

They don't though. We asked them and they said "No thanks, we're all good as we are."

Or are you in the "Just keep asking until they say 'yes'" camp?

What also gets me is that they refer to getting just 50.1% of the vote once either in a referendum or the election as a mandate for independence. That does not prove a clear and consistent majority to make such a major constitutional change, it might be due to some very short term issues only, and it doesn’t prove that it’s a majority of the electorate but only those that voted. For such a major change in a golf club, for example, you’d need a 2/3 majority!

Also it strikes me that their plan is just to run and re-run various votes until it nudges above 50%, yet those of us who were against Brexit are told to accept it and move on with no chance to reverse that in the foreseeable future. Plenty of arguments could be offered as to why another vote there could be allowed, but that argument is dead in the water. Yet for Scottish independence it keeps on going until they get what they want so would they then support another vote to allow any small and temporary independence majority to be reversed with a rerun of the vote within just a few years of obtaining it? I doubt it.

 

[Swansman]

They don't though. We asked them and they said "No thanks, we're all good as we are."

Or are you in the "Just keep asking until they say 'yes'" camp?

Sure, you asked them "do you want a divorce or not?" and they said no... and then five minutes later you turned into coked up compulsive-obsessive self-harmers with about as much vision and future planning as some kind of sober raging alcoholic or Watford Football Club... maybe only fair to ask again? Things seem to have changed.

 

[PeterT]

Sure, you asked them "do you want a divorce or not?" and they said no... and then five minutes later you turned into coked up compulsive-obsessive self-harmers with about as much vision and future planning as some kind of sober raging alcoholic or Watford Football Club... maybe only fair to ask again? Things seem to have changed.

So you keep running these votes whenever either party wants them? Just in case there’s a swing one way or the other? Shall we say monthly, or is that a bit too long to wait?

 

[Swansman]

So you keep running these votes whenever either party wants them? Just in case there’s a swing one way or the other? Shall we say monthly, or is that a bit too long to wait?

Every 10 years or so seems reasonable if there is a public demand for it.

 

[pastafarian]

imagine the furore if the EU said rhe UK couldn;t vote to leave, surely those judges are the enemies of the scottish people?

Bit of a silly hypothetical you have dreamt up there considering its written in black and white in a certain EU treaty that you can indeed vote to leave...... "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"

 

[BadFish]

Looking at the polls on the subject I revise my opinion. There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of public clamouring for a breakaway.

Opinion polling on Scottish independence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe if the polls hit significantly over 50% then a referendum would be appropriate.

 

[GT49er]

So you keep running these votes whenever either party wants them? Just in case there’s a swing one way or the other? Shall we say monthly, or is that a bit too long to wait?

40 years. Same as the gap between the two Scottish independence votes, and the 40 years for the chance to vote out of the EU. Come back again in 40 years for another vote (OK, if you're picky, and very pissed off with one or more of them, somewhere in the high 30s)

 

[GT49er]

Bit of a silly hypothetical you have dreamt up there considering its written in black and white in a certain EU treaty that you can indeed vote to leave...... "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"

Yes, but if you really, really, really don't like that..........? Where does that leave your human rights?

 

[sparkie]

I'd agree if they were binding referenda and required a supermajority. If you're suggesting that a marginal vote to leave the EU on a particularly day that could of gone the other way on a different day and dramatically disadvantaged the country and the populace should be set in stone for 40 years, then think again.

Yeah, 40 years is just a random figure which takes no account of the democratic will of the people.

If enough of the population vote for a party offering a referendum at a General Election then that's good enough. 1 year or 1000 years - no need for arbitrary 40 year hand cuffs which are a matter of personal opinion ( an opinion which will vary from citizen to citizen as well ).