nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scottish independence

Faye McAleer

Would you be in support of a politico-economic union and formal international intergovernmental cooperation between the three Gaelic nations, (united) Ireland, (independent) Scotland and the Isle of Man similar to Benelux?

The Benelux cooperation has served as a model for the EU, and is basically an EU lite, comprising a customs union and a parliament as well as shared resources.

This could work between the three Gaelic nations and when we get reunification and the Scottish get independence, I think it is something good that should be created.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

bob mcbob wrote: »

Let's say parliament was essentially controlled by a populist, right-wing, English nationalist party led by a chancer with few scruples who only wanted power for power's sake (I am talking hypothetically here) then in order to retain control they could stoke anger against an external party. Then when they have what they want, they could revoke any law which did not suite them because as you state Parliament is sovereign. (This is of course very much a hypothetical scenario)

all of which will be solved in an independent Scotland I presume, unless a massively populist Scottish Nationalist party, led by a megalomaniac (hypothetically of course) gets in to power and starts banning opposition parties and classing any opposition to independence as treason, because in an independent Scotland, Parliament would most likely be sovereign.

Hypothetically, of course.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

all of which will be solved in an independent Scotland I presume, unless a massively populist Scottish Nationalist party, led by a megalomaniac (hypothetically of course) gets in to power and starts banning opposition parties and classing any opposition to independence as treason, because in an independent Scotland, Parliament would most likely be sovereign.

Hypothetically, of course.

Well if Scotland joined EFTA or re-joined the EU it would of course be subject to EU rules. So no.

[Deleted User]

bob mcbob wrote: »

Well if Scotland joined EFTA or re-joined the EU it would of course be subject to EU rules. So no.

Which are generally derived from the council of Europe, of which the uk is still a member.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

all of which will be solved in an independent Scotland I presume, unless a massively populist Scottish Nationalist party, led by a megalomaniac (hypothetically of course) gets in to power and starts banning opposition parties and classing any opposition to independence as treason, because in an independent Scotland, Parliament would most likely be sovereign.

What makes you say this? Absolute parliamentary sovereignty is an English political tradition; there is no reason to assume that an independent Scotland would embrace it. And at the time of the last referendum the interim constitution put before the people did not embrace it; it provided that for the people to be sovereign, and for the powers of parliament to be limited by the constitution. So your assumption here seems to be radically at odds with the available evidence.

Aegir wrote: »

Which are generally derived from the council of Europe, of which the uk is still a member.

EU rules are absolutely not "generally derived from the Council of Europe". Who told you this?

BlitzKrieg

Might be confusing Council of Europe with the Council of European Union?

Peregrinus

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Might be confusing Council of Europe with the Council of European Union?

I doubt it. I disagree with Aegir about a lot of things, but I'm pretty confident he would be aware that the UK no longer participates in the Council of the European Union.

[Deleted User]

Peregrinus wrote: »

What makes you say this? Absolute parliamentary sovereignty is an English political tradition; there is no reason to assume that an independent Scotland would embrace it. And at the time of the last referendum the interim constitution put before the people did not embrace it; it provided that for the people to be sovereign, and for the powers of parliament to be limited by the constitution. So your assumption here seems to be radically at odds with the available evidence.

A despot getting in to power and riding rough shod over the constitution/laws of the country could happen with or without parliamentary sovereignty and with or without EU membership. its all a bit of a pointless discussion to be honest.

Peregrinus wrote: »

EU rules are absolutely not "generally derived from the Council of Europe". Who told you this?

I was referring to Human Rights legislation.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

A despot getting in to power and riding rough shod over the constitution/laws of the country could happen with or without parliamentary sovereignty and with or without EU membership. its all a bit of a pointless discussion to be honest.

And, indeed, with or without Scottish independence. Given the pointlessness, I wonder why you raised the topic?

[Deleted User]

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, indeed, with or without Scottish independence. Given the pointlessness, I wonder why you raised the topic?

I didn’t. Bob did for some reason.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Tories are making every leaflet and interview in this election about independence. What happens when the public reject them and vote for pro-independence parties? Ross tries to explain to Channel 4 News

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1384208872789876744

Capt'n Midnight

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Tories are making every leaflet and interview in this election about independence.

I disagree.

They also have generic templates that they didn't bother to proof read this from 2015 , this from this week

Making about independence might be a winner, if they had something to show for it. Otherwise they are reminding people of how Westminster dealt with thing like the money from Scottish oil.

McGiver

Peregrinus wrote:

EU rules are absolutely not "generally derived from the Council of Europe". Who told you this?

Russia is also a member of the Council of Europe. That's all we need to say about CoE and its relation to the EU regulatory framework

Council of the European Union is a tad different thing...

[Deleted User]

McGiver wrote: »

Russia is also a member of the Council of Europe. That's all we need to say about CoE and its relation to the EU regulatory framework

Council of the European Union is a tad different thing...

None of which is remotely relevant.

Sam Russell

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Tories are making every leaflet and interview in this election about independence. What happens when the public reject them and vote for pro-independence parties? Ross tries to explain to Channel 4 News

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1384208872789876744

He was just short of saying 'We have a nuclear deterrent in Fasslane to stop Scottish Independence! - and do not think the Conservatives wont use it!'

I thought Tories had banned themselves from Ch4 News - they ask too many pointy questions.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

I didn’t. Bob did for some reason.

The point is that if a majority vote for indy2 supporting parties and the vote is refused then as some commentators have pointed out, the union is no longer based on consent but instead on the "rule of law".

Absolute parliamentary sovereignty means that the "rule of law" is whatever parliament wants it to be.

So the current case going thru the courts to decide if the Scots can call indy2 without Westminster approval is pointless because even if the case is won, parliament can just change the law.

Sam Russell

bob mcbob wrote: »

The point is that if a majority vote for indy2 supporting parties and the vote is refused then as some commentators have pointed out, the union is no longer based on consent but instead on the "rule of law".

Absolute parliamentary sovereignty means that the "rule of law" is whatever parliament wants it to be.

So the current case going thru the courts to decide if the Scots can call indy2 without Westminster approval is pointless because even if the case is won, parliament can just change the law.

Johnson is reported as saying a NI border poll will not take place for a very very long time. Again, flying in the face of the GF agreement which says such a poll should take place 'when it is considered to be likely to pass'.

It is clear the UK Gov is heading for rule by despot - forget about democracy.

A Dub in Glasgo

bob mcbob wrote: »

, parliament can just change the law.

Which is exactly what happened for the Brexit power grab on devolved powers

L1011

Johnson saying something won't happen usually means it does. If adding "for a very very long time" has the same opposite effect, I'm off to the bookies to put a tenner on a poll by March.

[Deleted User]

bob mcbob wrote: »

The point is that if a majority vote for indy2 supporting parties and the vote is refused then as some commentators have pointed out, the union is no longer based on consent but instead on the "rule of law".

Absolute parliamentary sovereignty means that the "rule of law" is whatever parliament wants it to be.

So the current case going thru the courts to decide if the Scots can call indy2 without Westminster approval is pointless because even if the case is won, parliament can just change the law.

then why didn't you say that?

It's a rabbit hole of a discussion, because it hasn't happened and all that will end up happening is a spiral of discussion that will ultimately end up with with a group of like minded posters agreeing that the UK is about to become an Orwellian state.

as demonstrated below=>

Sam Russell wrote: »

Johnson is reported as saying a NI border poll will not take place for a very very long time. Again, flying in the face of the GF agreement which says such a poll should take place 'when it is considered to be likely to pass'.

It is clear the UK Gov is heading for rule by despot - forget about democracy.

and Martin warned against calling a border poll too early.

Given the amount of disturbances in the North at the moment, do you think discussion of an imminent border poll is a good idea?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Which is exactly what happened for the Brexit power grab on devolved powers

powers that previously managed by the EU you mean?

it wasn't a power grab, it was centralising.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

then why didn't you say that?

It's a rabbit hole of a discussion, because it hasn't happened and all that will end up happening is a spiral of discussion that will ultimately end up with with a group of like minded posters agreeing that the UK is about to become an Orwellian state.

as demonstrated below=>

and Martin warned against calling a border poll too early.

Given the amount of disturbances in the North at the moment, do you think discussion of an imminent border poll is a good idea?

powers that previously managed by the EU you mean?

it wasn't a power grab, it was centralising.

Off topi but -

Oh really you seem to have a short memory - think back 6 months or so. A right wing populist leader with bad hair and a promise to make their country great again was willing to tramp over democractic principles - do you remember?

What's the political difference between Trump and Boris?

Still couldn't happen here !

Crooked Jack

Aegir wrote: »

Given the amount of disturbances in the North at the moment, do you think discussion of an imminent border poll is a good idea?

This is going to be the response of a certain section of unionism to any announcement of a Unity Ref, regardless of when it happens and what the political landscape is. It's not a good enough reason to deny people a say on a major issue.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

it wasn't a power grab, it was centralising.

The Supreme Court only declared it lawful under the devolution settlement after the Tories changed the law in parliament before the Supreme Court ruled

Water John

See that the UK Govn't are using similar Brexit type tactics in their talks with both Australia and New Zealand.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/21/bizarre-uk-comments-about-australias-trade-minister-a-serious-setback-to-talks
Always a bully, Scotland can't expect anything different.

astrofool

Water John wrote: »

See that the UK Govn't are using similar Brexit type tactics in their talks with both Australia and New Zealand.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/21/bizarre-uk-comments-about-australias-trade-minister-a-serious-setback-to-talks
Always a bully, Scotland can't expect anything different.

It usually means that the talks are failing and they're reduced to one big announcement as a "win" while the other side scoff down all the cake.

dogbert27

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9501851/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Makes-proud-English-Yes-really.html

From Holyrood to Hollywood, the English have always been cast as the oppressor, by everyone from opportunist nationalist politicians to cynical movie producers behind such travesties as Braveheart and In The Name Of The Father.

For our part, the English have taken it in our stride, and with good humour. We put up with Wee Burney and her tiresome Toytown Tartanistas slagging us off and peddling bogus historical grievances for political gain.

The Scot Nats are still banging on about Culloden, for heaven's sake. But that doesn't stop them taking our money.

How tone deaf is this?

It's not the SNP taking English money. It's the Scottish government that is currently part of the United Kingdom that receive their share from the UK government.

But if he wants Scotland to not receive money from the "English" government then he should start using his column in support of an independent Scotland.

pixelburp

I dunno; without sounding like a hostile áss, more fool you dogbert for reading a Richard Littlejohn article. The man is the embodiment of every bad faith, Little Englander argument made flesh; and makes a very tidy career both trolling the rest of us, while appealing to those demographics.

Like, when you have this kind of open, knowing cognitive dissonance at play:

Richard Littlejohn wrote:

"Being one of the most tolerant and liberal nations on earth makes me proud to be English"

...

"We put up with Wee Burney and her tiresome Toytown Tartanistas slagging us off and peddling bogus historical grievances for political gain."

*chef's kiss* You almost have to admire the hubris and nerve. Almost.

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

Johnson is reported as saying a NI border poll will not take place for a very very long time. Again, flying in the face of the GF agreement which says such a poll should take place 'when it is considered to be likely to pass'.

It is clear the UK Gov is heading for rule by despot - forget about democracy.

Whereabouts in the Belfast Agreement do you say that phrase appears?

Sam Russell

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Whereabouts in the Belfast Agreement do you say that phrase appears?

2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

I think that says it there.

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that says it there.

Thanks. I was feeling lazy and because it wasn't an exact quote (though it captures the spirit) I couldn't use the "find" function.

Sam Russell

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Thanks. I was feeling lazy and because it wasn't an exact quote (though it captures the spirit) I couldn't use the "find" function.

You are not alone - Raab, when SoS for Brexit admitted that he had not read the 34 page document while it was central to the on going negotiations.