Supreme Court ruling on Scot ref - Scottish govt does NOT have right to hold another referendum

There is a good reason we have a proper process and we don't just allow the vocal minority to call the shots.

We don't have a proper process and we do allow a vocal minority to call the shots. The vocal minority is whichever party happens to be in government in Westminster. A proper process really should have some route to a referendum that the Scottish Parliament control.

Imagine if the UK government had been told they couldn't hold the Brexit referendum, or trigger article 50, and that these things were to be controlled by a majority in the EU Parliament. Nobody would call that a proper process.
 
Last edited:
We don't have a proper process and we do all a vocal minority to call the shots. The vocal minority is whichever party happens to be in government in Westminster. A proper process really should have some route to a referendum that the Scottish Parliament control.

Imagine if the UK government had been told they couldn't hold the Brexit referendum, or trigger article 50, and that these things were to be controlled by a majority in the EU Parliament. Nobody would call that a proper process.
The EU have a legal route to leave. The union doesn't. It probably should though.
 
Mate I haven't asked everyone's opinion on the Tories at work but I know that most people think they are *****.

Good for you, mystic Meg! But the tories keep getting elected so someone must vote for them. The SNP have smashed elections up there for 10 years so it can't actually be the case that everyone in Scotland hates them and calls Sturgeon horrible or whatever it was.

And it isn't independence = Tories remain = labour. That's just you trying to put people in neat little boxes to allow you to disparage them.

I don't know what you're on about here tbh? When do you think I've said that?
 
Last edited:
There isn't a legal route what you are describing is a political route.

You didn't say legal route, you said legal mechanism, but a legal mechanism to the Scottish Parliament running a independence referendum is the granting of a Section 30 order from Westminster, which grants a normally reserved matter to a devolved administration.

As happened in 2014 with the Edinburgh agreement.

Legislation is the passing of laws, AKA a legal route.

The Supreme Court just provided clarification on that legal route.
 
You didn't say legal route, you said legal mechanism, but a legal mechanism to the Scottish Parliament running a independence referendum is the granting of a Section 30 order from Westminster, which grants a normally reserved matter to a devolved administration.

As happened in 2014 with the Edinburgh agreement.

Legislation is the passing of laws, AKA a legal route.
It's a political route not a legal route. It can only be done through the westminster parliament. That is a political mechanism.

Before we get started on this, let's not bother.
 
It's a political route not a legal route. It can only be done through the westminster parliament. That is a political mechanism.

Before we get started on this, let's not bother.

I'm not sure what you're using as your definition of legal if you think that legislation and Acts of Parliament aren't it, the courts just provide judgement on the interpretation of laws set by Parliament, but fair enough, I'll leave it there and agree to disagree.
 
It doesn't matter one jot what the legal position is when discussing a rationale for something.
Really? What a bizarre thing to say. Of course it is a factor.
They are the defacto Scottish government and they want a referendum. They gained a majority on the back of independence. The house should be allowed to vote on a referendum and let the electorate decide in that referendum.
The SNP are not the defacto Scottish Government, they govern on specific matters and not on this issue.
They want that remit, but don't have it.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood, they have a coalition with the Greens that gives them control. This coalition is admittedly aligned on Independence for Scotland, but 51% of those who voted, did so for anti independence parties.
Interestingly Scottish turnout was higher for the 2019 General election than it was for the last Scottish Parliament election.
Jeez I am confused why people wouldn't just agree that the scottish people should have the right to self determination through their parliament
Their Parliaments are in Westminster first and then Edinburgh.

A referendum is disruptive and causes unhelpful uncertainty, which is one of the reasons why most folk understand they should not be frequently re-run on the same issue.
I am sure of course there is scope to revisit issues decided by a referendum, but unless there are defined formal routes/timings, then there surely has to be significant evidence that the result would be materially different?
Given the SNP has NEVER had a 50% share of any vote, let alone a significant majority - and have actually receded since 2015 - I see no evidence that the Scots have materially shouted a majority desire for independence, or even a referendum for it just now.
No election result; no opinion polls; no huge public demonstration.

I absolutely agree that people should not be forced to stay where they don't wish to be. But process and timing do matter.
 
Really? What a bizarre thing to say. Of course it is a factor.

The SNP are not the defacto Scottish Government, they govern on specific matters and not on this issue.
They want that remit, but don't have it.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood, they have a coalition with the Greens that gives them control. This coalition is admittedly aligned on Independence for Scotland, but 51% of those who voted, did so for anti independence parties.
Interestingly Scottish turnout was higher for the 2019 General election than it was for the last Scottish Parliament election.

Their Parliaments are in Westminster first and then Edinburgh.

A referendum is disruptive and causes unhelpful uncertainty, which is one of the reasons why most folk understand they should not be frequently re-run on the same issue.
I am sure of course there is scope to revisit issues decided by a referendum, but unless there are defined formal routes/timings, then there surely has to be significant evidence that the result would be materially different?
Given the SNP has NEVER had a 50% share of any vote, let alone a significant majority - and have actually receded since 2015 - I see no evidence that the Scots have materially shouted a majority desire for independence, or even a referendum for it just now.
No election result; no opinion polls; no huge public demonstration.

I absolutely agree that people should not be forced to stay where they don't wish to be. But process and timing do matter.
A lot to address there indeedido. On the legal point it isn't bizarre. A legal ruling is based solely on law. But that is not what you were referring to when you said there was no rational for a referendum.

On the snp being the de-facto Scottish government. They have one short of a majority. They don't really need a coalition do they and certainly not on a referendum its their sole reason for being.

For the rest of it out doesn't matter how many Scottish folk want independence 40%,50% or all of them it matters that they have been denied the right to determine that on their own.

Disruptive... So what the abolition of slavery was very disruptive. It was still the right thing to do. As for timing, why do you or I or anyone other than the Scottish get to decide that. Its a really silly argument.

On evidence of the Scottish wanting a vote. Well the best way to decide that is give them a vote. Of course you can have your own set of criteria but as I said Scotland don't care what you think and neither should they.

I wonder at anyone arguing against a referendum on independence it ought to be a matter for Scotland alone. Unfortunately its not.
 
A lot to address there indeedido. On the legal point it isn't bizarre. A legal ruling is based solely on law. But that is not what you were referring to when you said there was no rational for a referendum.

On the snp being the de-facto Scottish government. They have one short of a majority. They don't really need a coalition do they and certainly not on a referendum its their sole reason for being.

For the rest of it out doesn't matter how many Scottish folk want independence 40%,50% or all of them it matters that they have been denied the right to determine that on their own.

Disruptive... So what the abolition of slavery was very disruptive. It was still the right thing to do. As for timing, why do you or I or anyone other than the Scottish get to decide that. Its a really silly argument.

On evidence of the Scottish wanting a vote. Well the best way to decide that is give them a vote. Of course you can have your own set of criteria but as I said Scotland don't care what you think and neither should they.

I wonder at anyone arguing against a referendum on independence it ought to be a matter for Scotland alone. Unfortunately its not.
You and I are not going to agree.
You don't accept the points or thoughts I raise. Up to you.
I sure as hell don't accept yours, I think they are as silly as you think mine.
No point in us keeping it up and having a major fall out.

The irony is we both seem to believe the Scots should not be subjugated and both think they would vote against independence again.
 
You and I are not going to agree.
You don't accept the points or thoughts I raise. Up to you.
I sure as hell don't accept yours, I think they are as silly as you think mine.
No point in us keeping it up and having a major fall out.

The irony is we both seem to believe the Scots should not be subjugated and both think they would vote against independence again.
Me silly😋 I think you'll find not.
 
Back
Top