If The Supreme Court deems Indyref2 legal?

[mi16]

Good morning all, lovely day innit
Could do with some popcorn

[Corky Smeek]

Well, I asked for clarity and that's what we got. Some initial thoughts.

Scotland is not in a voluntary union.

Scotland is not in a union of equals.

The democratic wishes of the people of Scotland are deemed secondary to those of the union.

Democracy in general is considered secondary to the perpetuation of the union.

Scotland is effectively being held captive.

The outrage this decision will cause will cement the case for Indy.

The issue is not resolved and is not going away any time soon.

[Goodfellers]

Well, I asked for clarity and that's what we got. Some initial thoughts.

Scotland is not in a voluntary union.

Scotland is not in a union of equals.

The democratic wishes of the people of Scotland are deemed secondary to those of the union.

Democracy in general is considered secondary to the perpetuation of the union.

Scotland is effectively being held captive.

The outrage this decision will cause will cement the case for Indy.

The issue is not resolved and is not going away any time soon.

At least 50% of the Scottish population are relieved with this result.

Now is a good opportunity for the SNP to show what they can actually achieve before a referendum is granted. I'm under no illusion that one will be granted at some point. If the SNP can take 60% of the vote in a GE it would be hard to argue against it.

I've heard a rumour that Westminster is planning to look at the law around referendums and is hoping to make it a requirement that a minimum of 60% of voters need to vote for change. I think that's a good idea.

[mi16]

Well, I asked for clarity and that's what we got. Some initial thoughts.

Scotland is not in a voluntary union.

Scotland is not in a union of equals.

The democratic wishes of the people of Scotland are deemed secondary to those of the union.

Democracy in general is considered secondary to the perpetuation of the union.

Scotland is effectively being held captive.

The outrage this decision will cause will cement the case for Indy.

The issue is not resolved and is not going away any time soon.

Well we are in a voluntary union, we were asked the question in 2014 and the majority wished to remain in the Union.
Wasting our valuable time and resources on this carry on a short while later is a nonsense, but you are correct that the Nats wont stop banging on about it any time soon.
Have the SNP actually officially asked the British Government for a referendum on Scottish Independence since 2014?

I actually think this is a result for Wee Jimmy, it gives her more time on the gravy train bleating about Westminster, rather than the career ending indyref2

[mi16]

[Goodfellers]

I bet that purse is stuffed with Westminster cash!

[Corky Smeek]

I'm not sure why relief would be an emotion. This ruling doesn't actually change anything. It merely confirms the status quo and confirms Scotland's subordinate position in the Union. If I were a unionist I would be very worried by this decision as it will undoubtedly galvanise the Yes movement and amplify the feelings of grievance many of us have.

[mi16]

I'm not sure why relief would be an emotion. This ruling doesn't actually change anything. It merely confirms the status quo and confirms Scotland's subordinate position in the Union. If I were a unionist I would be very worried by this decision as it will undoubtedly galvanise the Yes movement and amplify the feelings of grievance many of us have.

Everyone's a winner then, the union can continue to live in your head rent free and the rest of us can carry on with life in the UK

[Corky Smeek]

Ok, so the dust has begun to settle and it has become clear that the UK is no longer a union of equals, if it ever was.

Scotland has been barred from leaving the Union unless England agrees. England has declared itself the superior power and has subordinated Scotland (and, in reality Wales and N. Ireland too). Many are even arguing that Scotland is being held captive in the Union with England acting as jailer in chief.

Now, I suspect that regardless of which side of the Indy debate you are on you will probably consider yourself a democrat. I also suspect that many on the Unionist side are perfectly happy with the SC ruling and will want to rubbish what I've just written. So, how do Unionists reconcile both viewpoints? It would appear that Scotland is divided roughly 50:50 on the matter of independence. It is equally clear that those of us who support independence are not going away. How can we resolve this impasse (and please don't say "we had a vote in 2014 and you lost", because circumstances have change dramatically since then)?

I would assert that Unionists have to recognise the contradictions in their standpoint. They cannot claim to be democrats and deny access to democracy at the same time. So how do we move forward? A S.30 agreement is not likely any time soon. The Labour Party are just as anti-Indy as the Tories: more so perhaps given that the SNP have supplanted them in Scotland. A change of UK Government will not break the deadlock, particularly if Labour win an overall majority. Perhaps a minority Labour Government might enter a coalition with the SNP in return for a S.30 agreement but recent pronouncements from Sir KS would indicate otherwise.

Surely the best way forward is for the PM to grant a S.30. If Yes loses then then that would be the issue stone dead for the foreseeable future. Everyone on the Unionist side seems very condident that they would win. If that is the case then they should be jumping at the chance to settle the issue. Why aren't they?

[Goodfellers]

Ok, so the dust has begun to settle and it has become clear that the UK is no longer a union of equals, if it ever was.

Scotland has been barred from leaving the Union unless England agrees. England has declared itself the superior power and has subordinated Scotland (and, in reality Wales and N. Ireland too). Many are even arguing that Scotland is being held captive in the Union with England acting as jailer in chief.

Now, I suspect that regardless of which side of the Indy debate you are on you will probably consider yourself a democrat. I also suspect that many on the Unionist side are perfectly happy with the SC ruling and will want to rubbish what I've just written. So, how do Unionists reconcile both viewpoints? It would appear that Scotland is divided roughly 50:50 on the matter of independence. It is equally clear that those of us who support independence are not going away. How can we resolve this impasse (and please don't say "we had a vote in 2014 and you lost", because circumstances have change dramatically since then)?

I would assert that Unionists have to recognise the contradictions in their standpoint. They cannot claim to be democrats and deny access to democracy at the same time. So how do we move forward? A S.30 agreement is not likely any time soon. The Labour Party are just as anti-Indy as the Tories: more so perhaps given that the SNP have supplanted them in Scotland. A change of UK Government will not break the deadlock, particularly if Labour win an overall majority. Perhaps a minority Labour Government might enter a coalition with the SNP in return for a S.30 agreement but recent pronouncements from Sir KS would indicate otherwise.

Surely the best way forward is for the PM to grant a S.30. If Yes loses then then that would be the issue stone dead for the foreseeable future. Everyone on the Unionist side seems very condident that they would win. If that is the case then they should be jumping at the chance to settle the issue. Why aren't they?

circumstances have change dramatically since then ​ That sentence is the problem. There will ALWAYS be a reason to hold (or at least ask) for yet another referendum. If it hadn't been the Brexit 'excuse' then it would have been the cost of living crisis, or even the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the fact the UK govt is supporting Ukraine with weapons. ANY excuse will do.

The SNP need to win 60% of the votes at the next election. I believe this was something they themselves said a few years ago. With 60% the UK government would find it hard to refuse. That's the only way you'll get another bite at independence.

As Bill Fernie alluded to on a different thread, a referendum won with 50% plus one never has a good outcome. You need 60% for stability.

[The Horseman]

Aye, Aye! End of!

[Corky Smeek]

@ Goodfellers - Are your serious? I can't tell. Surely you are not denying that the situation is now drastically different. And you say, "There will ALWAYS be a reason to hold (or at least ask) for yet another referendum", whilst completely forgetting (or conveniently ignoring) the ad nauseam repetition of the mantra of all Unionists - "Now is not the time". How many times has that been used to justify a S.30 refusal? New PM in office - Now is not the time. Brexit referendum - Now is not the time. Covid - Now is not the time. Another new PM in office - Now is not the time. CoLC - Now is not the time. War in Ukraine - Now is not the time. Another new PM in Office - Now is not the time. Larry the Downing Street cat has gone missing - Now is not the time. Rinse and repeat.

There will ALWAYS be a reason to not to grant a Section 30 order and none of them have even the least relationship with democracy. I asked how Unionists can reconcile claiming they are democrats with their concerted attempts to deny it in Scotland. Your response is to alter democracy to make sure your side always wins but to dress it up in the guise of "stability".

You are entitled to your view. However, if you are so sure, why are you so scared of giving the people another "bite at independence"? I think we all know the answer to that!

[The Horseman]

Corky….If all the Polls said….’You are not going to get what you want’ at this time, why keep whining about it!
It is all ‘In Vain’. You must realize that!
Why hold any Contest if one is Guaranteed to lose! Can't u see that!

People are trying to heat their homes and trying to stay above Poverty! And you are Crying for another Vote…..that will be the same, likely worse than the last one!

[Goodfellers]

Corky, I expected you to rubbish anything I said, so no suprise in your response, even though my reply was a sensible option for moving forward.

Quick question you say, "If Yes loses then then that would be the issue stone dead for the foreseeable future" Can we have your definition in approximate years, of how long the foreseeable future is, or would it, like now be very flexible depending on what the UK government policy is on each and every item you disagree with? Just trying to work out if 'the foreseeable future' is anything from a few months to at least a year.

Another point to think about. IF the SG did have the power to hold referendums that were legally binding, what would stop them holding one annually until they got the result they wanted? I think business leaders were pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling, at least they can plan longer term with this result.

[Corky Smeek]

@ Goodfellers, if your reply, "was a sensible option for moving forward" then I should hate to read one of your flights of fancy. I had hoped, just for once, you might engage in a serious debate on the issue but sadly, that seems beyond you.

Democracy can be defined as a form of government that is an expression of the will of the people. How can you know what the will of the people is if you do not give them the chance to express their views? People are entitled to change their minds as events unfold. Denying people the right to communicate their opinion is profoundly undemocratic. These are the tactics of a fragile and frightened government and are more at home in a repressive, authoritarian regime than a supposed advance Western democracy. The fact that you support the denial of a S.30 agreement speaks volumes about your attitude to democracy.

Can we have your definition, in approximate years, of how much longer respective UKG's can treat the Scottish electorate as second-class citizens? Just trying to work out if it's years or decades; eternity even.

@ Horseman, you really aren't keeping up to date. The only reason the UK gov't is denying a S.30 is because they know they would lose. If they thought they would win they would allow IndyRef2.

[Goodfellers]

@ Goodfellers, if your reply, "was a sensible option for moving forward" then I should hate to read one of your flights of fancy. I had hoped, just for once, you might engage in a serious debate on the issue but sadly, that seems beyond you.

Democracy can be defined as a form of government that is an expression of the will of the people. How can you know what the will of the people is if you do not give them the chance to express their views? People are entitled to change their minds as events unfold. Denying people the right to communicate their opinion is profoundly undemocratic. These are the tactics of a fragile and frightened government and are more at home in a repressive, authoritarian regime than a supposed advance Western democracy. The fact that you support the denial of a S.30 agreement speaks volumes about your attitude to democracy.

Can we have your definition, in approximate years, of how much longer respective UKG's can treat the Scottish electorate as second-class citizens? Just trying to work out if it's years or decades; eternity even.

@ Horseman, you really aren't keeping up to date. The only reason the UK gov't is denying a S.30 is because they know they would lose. If they thought they would win they would allow IndyRef2.

Standard 'yes' movement response. Refuse to answer a straight question. You are doing the 'No' movement with your deflections a great service. Keep it up.

[Corky Smeek]

Standard 'yes' movement response. Refuse to answer a straight question. You are doing the 'No' movement with your deflections a great service. Keep it up.

Standard "No" movement response. Happy to deny democracy. Vile frankly.

[Goodfellers]

Standard "No" movement response. Happy to deny democracy. Vile frankly.

(---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)

[Corky Smeek]

(---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)

Another standard "No" movement response. No engagement; no answer to anything. Just keep on stonewalling in the hope that all these beastly separatists will go away.

If you are going to take anything from this exchange please let it be that you recognise democracy is a fragile thing. One day you may find, to your horror, that what you have wished for comes back and is used against you.

[Corky Smeek]

And Paul Kavanagh hits the nail squarely on the head:- https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2...-nationalists/