Indyref 2 (2) - Page 6 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 433
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Supreme Court can judge on case; holding a referendum on independence is not within the powers of the Scottish Parliament - unanimously.

This ruling was based on the point that an advisory referendum would have political consequences for the future of the union. Wouldn't an election not have political consequences for the union?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expected this.

Hoped for a deferral however I am also hoping that this option has been gamed through..

Where next.

The Yoons will now have to answer how exactly we get a referendum, how we can fulfill our Democratic choice.

This has a long way to run.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stocky said:

I expected this.

Hoped for a deferral however I am also hoping that this option has been gamed through..

Where next.

The Yoons will now have to answer how exactly we get a referendum, how we can fulfill our Democratic choice.

This has a long way to run.

The problem always becomes when you take away a political route for something, you drive people to more extreme measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Clyde1998 said:

The problem always becomes when you take away a political route for something, you drive people to more extreme measures.

The Yoons would have contested this after the referendum or boycotted it all together.

That would have been worse 

I think they had to do this, even though defeat was pretty certain 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, stocky said:

The Yoons would have contested this after the referendum or boycotted it all together.

That would have been worse 

I think they had to do this, even though defeat was pretty certain 

Yeah, the question had to be answered and at least this is a definitive answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Malcolm said:


recent times polls will include the view of him now which for obvious reasons is tainted.  Cast your mind back to 2014.  Yes, there was an arrogance about salmond, but also a swagger and inspirational  personality.  Nicola is viewed as dour.

Anyway, it’s minor compared to other points. 

Both leaders are marmite. I would however take dour over  a party in power who chooses numerous incompetent leaders within a few years and an ex health secretary who fooks off to the jungle whilst he remains an MP and thinks its ok to wipe bird shit off his seat with his hands.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Both leaders are marmite. I would however take dour over  a party in power who chooses numerous incompetent leaders within a few years and an ex health secretary who fooks off to the jungle whilst he remains an MP and thinks its ok to wipe bird shit off his seat with his hands.  


😂😂😂

his political career is over. No credibility left after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Clyde1998 said:

Supreme Court can judge on case; holding a referendum on independence is not within the powers of the Scottish Parliament - unanimously.

This ruling was based on the point that an advisory referendum would have political consequences for the future of the union. Wouldn't an election not have political consequences for the union?

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.

30 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Well that’s that then.  I don’t see any way forward from here unless the Uk government grants another referendum.

Which they won't, not unless they have no other option politically, because this judgement has confirmed that they are not obliged to.

The way forward, I guess, is to try to engage with the international community.  To my mind it goes against the UN charter on human right but I'm no expert - clearly!

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...
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...