Indyref 2 (2) - Page 7 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Indyref 2 (2)


Recommended Posts

Just now, scotlad said:

That's a very fair point.

Maybe I'm naive but I am quite surprised by the verdict.  I had half expected them to say, yes, the SG could hold a referendum but it wouldn't be legally binding without agreement with the UKG.

This verdict though makes a mockery of the notion that the UK is a voluntary union.

That was exactly what I was expecting. Their view was it doesn't impact on the union legally - which was my interpretation, but the political aspect was something I wasn't expecting.

The argument of the UK is a voluntary union has completely died today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, Malcolm said:


UDI would have the army in the streets instantly and we would be “occupied”.  UdI will never happen.

The Supreme Court just ruled occupied nations are allowed self-determination (Paragraph 89 of the judgement) 😉.

Some 18-dimensional chess 🙃.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don’t know where this leaves independence, the only thing we have, that many on here have laughed at, is the claim of right.. I am furojust now at a mixture of things, the Supreme Court, smug unionists and sturgeon who doesn’t seem to have a plan, let’s see what she says at 11.30. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

I honestly don’t know where this leaves independence, the only thing we have, that many on here have laughed at, is the claim of right.. I am furojust now at a mixture of things, the Supreme Court, smug unionists and sturgeon who doesn’t seem to have a plan, let’s see what she says at 11.30. 

Explain to me how the Claim of Right works then?

Don’t worry, this is a rhetorical question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Do we really want a referendum when theres a good chance we lose it anyway? Use this verdict to ramp up pressure on westminster to grant one in a few years time with the rhetoric that we are not in a voluntary union as proven today.

I see where you are coming from but we have to take ANY chance if and when it comes. I stand by what I have said before - even if IndyRef2 was voted against you will still have a huge amount of people who support it. The question will not go away and the unionists have no way of quelling the independence movement.

The only way the independence movement and calls for referendums will die is if support for independence shrunk back to the levels of the 1950s and 60s which ain't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Do we really want a referendum when theres a good chance we lose it anyway? Use this verdict to ramp up pressure on westminster to grant one in a few years time with the rhetoric that we are not in a voluntary union as proven today.

I'm surprised you think there's "a good chance" we will lose, given the absolute erse the "UK" has turned in to since 2014, I think the reason the yoons are so desperately standing against even entertaining a referendum is they know there's a damn good chance they will lose. 
I agree with second part, we need to batter them into submission and not in a nice way. Sick to death of this "please can we have a referendum pretty please" pish. 
Got to say I thought the argument for in this case at the supreme court was pathetic, total lack of baws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bzzzz said:

I'm surprised you think there's "a good chance" we will lose, given the absolute erse the "UK" has turned in to since 2014, I think the reason the yoons are so desperately standing against even entertaining a referendum is they know there's a damn good chance they will lose. 
I agree with second part, we need to batter them into submission and not in a nice way. Sick to death of this "please can we have a referendum pretty please" pish. 
Got to say I thought the argument for in this case at the supreme court was pathetic, total lack of baws. 

Just look at the polling for the last year. Most have a slight lead for the union. In my opinion its probably near 50/50 which isnt great reading considering the mess the uks been in with tory leaders and the energy costs etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listened to "Prime Minister's Questions"  on LBC radio. Heard Ian Blackford's question about the Supreme Court's decision. Paraphrasing: "Can the Right Honourable gentlemen confirm that the notion of the United Kingdom being a voluntary union of nations is complete b*llocks?"
Rishi Sunak replied with Boris-Johnson-style waffle (an answer to the question might have buried in there somewhere?)
But the interesting thing for me was when they cut back to the studio where James O'Brien and political analyst Theo Usherwood discussed PMQs: they didn't mention Blackford's question. Or the supreme court decision. (At least up to the newsbreak when I switched off).

Whatever side of the Indy debate someone might be on, it's a bit of a slap in the collective face of Scotland that even Westminster analysts and well-known centre-left presenters can't be *rsed even discussing Scotland-related WM parliamentary matters?
 

Edited by mcguffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It beggars belief there is still anyone out there that still sees the UK as a partnership of equals.
 I can only assume that  people who have no doubts at all about remaining in the UK  are either devoted unionists or are so scared of going alone they are quite prepared  to put up with continuous slap downs . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, mcguffin said:

Listened to "Prime Minister's Questions"  on LBC radio. Heard Ian Blackford's question about the Supreme Court's decision. Paraphrasing: "Can the Right Honourable gentlemen confirm that the notion of the United Kingdom being a voluntary union of nations is complete b*llocks?"
Rishi Sunak replied with Boris-Johnson-style waffle (an answer to the question might have buried in there somewhere?)
But the interesting thing for me was when they cut back to the studio where James O'Brien and political analyst Theo Usherwood discussed PMQs: they didn't mention Blackford's question. Or the supreme court decision. (At least up to the newsbreak when I switched off).

Whatever side of the Indy debate someone might be on, it's a bit of a slap in the collective face of Scotland that even Westminster analysts and well-known centre-left presenters can't be *rsed even discussing Scotland-related WM parliamentary matters?
 

He covered it earlier by the look of this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the narrow terms of its remit, the devolution settlement, and constitutional affairs reserved, and the Supremet Court being what it is, it seems completely natural that they'd say an indyref was unconstitutional without WM consent. If anything the problem was sewn in the Blair Government that set up devolution and Supreme Court this way. 

One suggestion that caught my eye is: what if all SNP MPs resigned and had a sort of national by election?

That would be a de facto referendum. The unionists would not boycott the chance to get their own MPs into their beloved westminster. And it would avoid the problem of a GE or Holyrood election in which people would be distracted by trying to kick out the Tories, or the best party to run Scotland.  It wouldn't be about kicking out the Tories because Scotland couldn't kick them out, however we cvote, and the election would be a living testimopny of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely Sturgeon's best hope is for a hung Parliament at the 2024 general election and for Labour to rely on the SNP to form an alliance to oust the Tories. Starmer will always rule out a coalition but he may not have a choice if forming an alliance is his only hope of kicking out the Tories. 

Edited by Saint4805
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, exile said:

In the narrow terms of its remit, the devolution settlement, and constitutional affairs reserved, and the Supremet Court being what it is, it seems completely natural that they'd say an indyref was unconstitutional without WM consent. If anything the problem was sewn in the Blair Government that set up devolution and Supreme Court this way. 

 

Absolutely this. Scotland was done up like a kipper in 1998. A Bill was created by unionists and constructed to make it certain Scots alone could not have a say on the union. A route the SG should maybe consider going down is creation of a new and fairer Scotland Bill which mirrors wording used in the 2014 Scotland Act which stated Scotland, at any time, if the call and need is there to hold another independence referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Saint4805 said:

Surely Sturgeon's best hope is for a hung Parliament at the 2024 general election and for Labour to rely on the SNP to form an alliance to oust the Tories. Starmer will always rule out a coalition but he may not have a choice if it's his only hope of kicking out the Tories. 


I don’t think starmer will throw the union under the bus for a term in office.  And that’s all it would be. One term.  England would be Tory for ever more. Suicide for labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Malcolm said:


I don’t think starmer will throw the union under the bus for a term in office.  And that’s all it would be. One term.  England would be Tory for ever more. Suicide for labour.

It didn't do the Tories any harm in 2014 (still in power today). It almost sounds like you feel IndyRef2 will result in a Yes vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Malcolm said:


I don’t think starmer will throw the union under the bus for a term in office.  And that’s all it would be. One term.  England would be Tory for ever more. Suicide for labour.

 

If Labour can't beat the Tories at the next election given all that has happened then Starmer would have to step down anyway and it may be Tory England for ever more regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Caledonian Craig said:

It didn't do the Tories any harm in 2014 (still in power today). It almost sounds like you feel IndyRef2 will result in a Yes vote.


I think there is an outside chance.  Opinion polls are almost 50:50 but I think it’s more likely to be no.  Either way, too big a risk for Labour or the tories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think that it's better to have had a clear cut judgement rather than the SC kicking the proverbial can down the road. People in Scotland need to be clear that any pretence that the UK is a voluntary union has died today. It also means that democracy is dead in Scotland as no matter how we vote it can be ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...