Scotland should ‘never leave EU’ - calls for new independence vote grow

First topic message reminder :

Leading Scottish politicians are calling for another referendum on independence from the UK after Britain voted to exit the EU. The Scottish public backed staying in the bloc and former SNP leader Alex Salmond says Scotland should “never leave the EU.”


Salmond made the comments during an interview with Sky News: “The sensible thing for Scotland to do would never be to leave the European Union,” he said.

His comments were backed by the current leader of the SNP, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who is also backing a second independence vote, after 62 percent of the population voted to remain in Europe. This was against the tide of the rest of the UK where 52 percent voted to leave the bloc.

"Scotland has delivered a strong, unequivocal vote to remain in the EU, and I welcome that endorsement of our European status," Sturgeon said on Friday before the final result was known, as cited by Reuters.

"Scotland has contributed significantly to the Remain vote across the UK. That reflects the positive campaign the SNP fought, which highlighted the gains and benefits of our EU membership, and people across Scotland have responded to that positive message,” she added. 
Sturgeon has remained consistent about her threat to call a second referendum. Speaking in April, she said: “The Scottish parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people.” 


In May, Salmond said Scotland would not be pulled out of the EU “against its will.”  



https://www.rt.com/uk/348160-scotland-brexit-uk-independence/








Think the song should be 'all by ourselves'

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't quite follow that first bit Bru. I don't think that Quill is right about the legal position.

The first bit was yes to independence and your out of the UK and and the EU and No that you are still in the UK and still in the EU.

Well Quill has quoted the lagal position and I've still to see anyone quote the specific legal postion that proves he's wrong.

I'm still not following that.

Which electorate was told that if they voted yes they would be out of the EU? At the time of the Scottish referendum, the Scots didn't know which way the EU referendum would go. They knew it was coming up and could go either way though. If they thought there was a chance it would be a vote to leave and they felt strongly they wanted to stay in the EU, they should have thought of that.

Original Quill wrote:Tommy, let's talk really straight.  The English have always tried to kick the Scots around.  Didge's attitude just showed it again...this goes back to Edward I.

Here's the fundamental question: do the Tories want to hold the Union together, or not?  Because if they do, I would advise against them opening up 800-year old wounds.

In a sense, you could forgive the English during the time of Edward I and Henry VIII, because back then they didn't know anything about mass psychology and holding grudges.  They all thought like didge: I'm gonna kick your ass!  

Now, with what we know about attitude and opinion, and holding together a political consensus in a pluralist age, the question is simple...do you want Union or not?  Because, without the EU y'all ain't gonna have Scotland or N.I.

Y'all just handed the silver platter to the anti-Unionists.

The Scots were given a chance to leave the UK, and they chose not to take it. How does that equate to England kicking the Scots around?

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Well if the law was already there that they could vote out of uk and still be in the eu... and this is what they all really wanted... then why did over 2 million vote to stay in the UK...?


Truth is that the Scots didn't want to leave the UK and then join the eu as a new member... as would be what would have had to have happened if they wanted to leave the UK and still be in the eu...


And I don't think they now want to leave the UK and then join the eu... as they would have to do still the same if they want to leave the UK and be a member of eu...


They may want to remain in the UK and have the UK remain in the eu... but the UK have voted and the result is clear!!!


The UK as a whole wants out of eu... they can have either... but they can't have both... and they can't force the UK to stay in the eu just because some of them want it that way!!!

But the law was enacted that the Scottsh electorate could vote out of the UK in the form of a referendum and the message was that if you vote out of the UK then you are out of the EU as well.  So we voted to stay with the UK in the belief that we would still be in the EU but that's not what happened. We're heading out. That's the point.

Anyway, it's late Tommy. CYA tomorrow.

Belief that we would still be in the EU? But they knew there was going to be a referendum to decide that issue. You mean the Scots took a gamble and predicted that the UK as a whole would vote to stay in the EU?

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't quite follow that first bit Bru. I don't think that Quill is right about the legal position.

The first bit was yes to independence and your out of the UK and and the EU and No that you are still in the UK and still in the EU.

Well Quill has quoted the lagal position and I've still to see anyone quote the specific legal postion that proves he's wrong.

I don't think that Quill is quoting the right legal position - he's clutching at straws. Of course there will be issues with Scotland wanting to stay in the EU, but at the moment they're in the UK and they do what the rest of the UK does. If they push for another referendum to get out of the UK, they could do it that way, and I think they should if they're going to cause so much trouble and refuse to abide by the decision of the UK as a whole.

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:Three people are saying the same thing here...Quill knows better though.

    
OMG ...and that has to be the best scrape the bottom of a barrel for desperation in an attempt to fortify your weak sided POV!   
Syl, and two mental midgets that are always needing remedial assistance and clarification for all their thinking, holy shit that was royal! 
But...hey, I've got 2 rocks in my pocket that have more value then those two combined

Scraping the bottom of the barrel is swooping down to make a pathetic post like this in a serious discussion.

I was merely pointing out to Quill that three of us were saying the same thing re the Scottish independence ref and last weeks EU ref in regard to where the Scots stood now.

Oh, Syl...you silent consent when one of your hyena pack comes dropping into hack-attack me at any given moment is just sooooo telling as well
I'm quite aware how your 'selective reading, has molded your opinions and that POV from your imperial pedestal it's hard to see the impact of your blindness!  
But do carry, on ...I'll repress my snarky/sarcasm rejoinders as much as possible and then I'll have a break and enjoy myself ...

4EVER2 wrote:Oh, Syl...you silent consent when one of your hyena pack comes dropping into hack-attack me at any given moment is just sooooo telling as well
I'm quite aware how your 'selective reading, has molded your opinions and that POV from your imperial pedestal it's hard to see the impact of your blindness!  
But do carry, on ...I'll repress my snarky/sarcasm rejoinders as much as possible and then I'll have a break and enjoy myself ...

I seldom interfere when people are having goes at each other...I reckon everyone is old and ugly enough to cope without my imput.
You however seem to be forever waiting in the wings to swoop down with hysterical calls of 'gangs and hyena packs' every time you imagine someone (usually yourself) is being picked on.

No one likes bullying, I don't see any here....maybe I just don't have your vivid imagination .

Scottish MEP receives standing ovation in European Parliament after passionate speech saying Scotland 'voted to remain'

'While I’m proudly Scottish, I’m also proudly European,' Alyn Smith said



A Scottish MEP has received a lengthy standing ovation from hundreds of members of the European Parliament after asking members “not to let Scotland down”.
Alyn Smith, from the Scottish National Party (SNP), addressed a special session on the Brexit in Brussels moments after Nigel Farage hailed Britain’s “independence day”.
“I represent Scotland within this house and while I’m proudly Scottish, I’m also proudly European,” he said.

Scottish National Party MEP Alyn Smith receives a standing ovation in the European Parliament
“I want my country to be internationalist, co-operative, ecological, far, European, and the people from Scotland along with the people of Northern Ireland and the people of London and lots and lots of people in Wales and England also voted to remain within our family of nations.”

Mr Smith said that people negotiating Britain’s future ties with the EU would need “cool heads and warm hearts” adding: “Please remember this: Scotland did not let you down. Please, I beg you, do not let Scotland down now.”
Hundreds of MEPs stood in a lengthy ovation at the close of Mr Smith’s speech, with applause delaying proceedings for several minutes.
Mr Farage and members Eurosceptic parties remained seated as the heated session continued, which saw the Ukip leader booed after telling fellow MEPs they had “never done a proper job in your lives”.
Martina Anderson, a Sinn Fein MEP, said Northern Ireland also voted Remain but called for change to some EU institutions to respond to public concerns.

Nigel Farage sits behind a British flag during a special session of European Parliament in Brussels on Tuesday, June 28, 2016 (AP)
“There was a democratic vote – we voted to Remain,” she told the European Parliament.
“I tell you that the last thing is the people of Ireland need is an EU border with 27 member states stuck right in the middle of it.
“You in the EU have supported our peace process and I ask you to continue to do that.”
Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Arlene Foster, has argued a Brexit offers new opportunities for the country but her deputy – Sinn Feinn’s Martin McGuinness - called for a poll on Irish reunification.
In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has raised the prospect of a second independence referendum because the circumstances under which Scots voted to remain party of the UK have undergone “substantial change”.
All electoral districts north of the border voted Remain, with the 75 per cent support in Edinburgh among the highest in the UK.

The SNP leader said it was also possible for the Scottish Parliament to refuse to ratify a Brexit, and has opened discussions with Brussels officials and the heads of EU states on the country’s future status.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, said he was sad at Thursday’s vote for Britain to leave the EU but that he would respect democracy. 
But he later asked Ukip MEPs “Why are you here?” as they attended the session despite wanting to exit the European Parliament.
David Cameron was preparing for an awkward meeting with EU leaders on Tuesday.
In the first session since the UK voted to leave the 28-nation bloc, he was due to discuss the implications of the Brexit as market volatility continued.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-scottish-mep-alyn-smith-standing-ovation-in-european-parliament-speech-scotland-a7107106.html

Let’s set the stage:

2012 Audit of UK Democracy wrote: The UK is a multinational state, comprising at present England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Wales was the subject of military conquest by England during the middle ages. England and Wales were united via an act of parliament of 1536, with Wales given representation in the English parliament. England and Scotland were united into Great Britain by the Treaty of Union of 1706, which was given legislative expression by the subsequent Acts of Union passed by the parliaments of both nations, creating a new British parliament. A similar Union between Great Britain and Ireland was affected in 1800, creating the United Kingdom. The UK in effect recognised the independence of southern Ireland with the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922; though it did not do so formally until the Ireland Act of 1949. Within the UK, England is clearly dominant. England has the largest population (over 80 per cent of the total) and therefore receives the greatest representation in the House of Commons (532 seats of 649 in the present House). England is also dominant economically, partly because of the size of the English population, but also due to the disproportionate influence of London and South East England on the UK’s economic affairs.  http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=1265

Is the UK a federal state, like the US, or a singular, unitary state?  Most of you assume a unitary state, because you are English (and by the ‘we’ of the UK, you mean primarily the English, with some other yokels out there).  But what about those others?  Most of the time they are out of the picture, but Brexit puts the issue square in the middle of the table.

Others do not assume the UK is unitary, nor do they conceive of it as England…and oh yeah, some others.  Scotland still conceives of itself as a separate entity.  So, too, does Northern Ireland.  (Wales has been subsumed into England for so long, that it is less outspoken.) This has been a nagging, unresolved question in the UK for decades, now going on centuries.

When you doubters and nay-sayers have digested this, I will continue in another post.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Tommy, let's talk really straight.  The English have always tried to kick the Scots around.  Didge's attitude just showed it again...this goes back to Edward I.

Here's the fundamental question: do the Tories want to hold the Union together, or not?  Because if they do, I would advise against them opening up 800-year old wounds.

In a sense, you could forgive the English during the time of Edward I and Henry VIII, because back then they didn't know anything about mass psychology and holding grudges.  They all thought like didge: I'm gonna kick your ass!  

Now, with what we know about attitude and opinion, and holding together a political consensus in a pluralist age, the question is simple...do you want Union or not?  Because, without the EU y'all ain't gonna have Scotland or N.I.

Y'all just handed the silver platter to the anti-Unionists.

The Scots were given a chance to leave the UK, and they chose not to take it. How does that equate to England kicking the Scots around?

I'm wondering the same thing

How have these divisions since evolved?

2012 Audit of UK Democracy wrote:Throughout its history, various forms of resistance to the traditional composition of the UK state have been evident. There has been opposition both to the unitary style of government; and to inclusion within the UK at all. In Ireland there has been a long history of resistance to membership of the UK; and an associated violent struggle between those who wish to secede (and since the 1920s, join with the south, later the Republic) and those who wish to remain part of the UK (known as ‘unionists’) … Nationalist movements also developed in Scotland and Wales during the twentieth century, becoming increasingly political in nature, forming into parties which began to promote the idea of independence from the UK. In Wales, nationalism has had a strong cultural and linguistic dimension, with Welsh being the most widely spoken minority indigenous language in the UK.

In Scotland, a lively nationalism has always been kept alive.  

2012 Audit of UK Democracy wrote:In Scotland, separatism has been mainly national and cultural in nature. In neither of these countries did religion play the same part that it did in Northern Ireland. Beyond the separatist movements in Scotland and Wales, there was growing support for the view, particularly in Scotland, that a greater degree of autonomy from Westminster/Whitehall was required. This sense was strengthened by the economic and industrial policies pursued by the Conservative governments of 1979-97, which had only limited electoral support in Scotland and Wales, and were perceived as greatly damaging by many within these nations.

The UK extended devolution to Scotland (and Wales), and that is: the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level.  The model for devolution was the Ireland Act of 1920 (suspended in 1972).  Attempts were made at devolution for Scotland (and Wales) in 1979, but enthusiasm was weak.

2012 Audit of UK Democracy wrote:Devolution has certainly not eradicated either secessionism or the desire amongst some for greater autonomy still.

Suffice it to say, you’ve got a hot caldron going on.  More later.

See, lefties complain about nationalism in England, and they call it racism or they complain about English people being too insular. When the Scots are nationalistic, all the lefties love it.

The UK voted out... Scotland are in the UK...

The UK is leaving the eu...


If Scotland want to leave the UK and join the eu then that is up to them...


But they cannot make the UK stay in the eu.

the EU told her to bugger off as irrelevant today.. there is a thread.

wee jimmy krankie

Tommy Monk wrote:The UK voted out... Scotland are in the UK...

The UK is leaving the eu...

If Scotland want to leave the UK and join the eu then that is up to them...

But they cannot make the UK stay in the eu.

You are absolutely right. Scotland will leave. So will Northern Ireland, most likely.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Tommy, let's talk really straight.  The English have always tried to kick the Scots around.  Didge's attitude just showed it again...this goes back to Edward I.

Here's the fundamental question: do the Tories want to hold the Union together, or not?  Because if they do, I would advise against them opening up 800-year old wounds.

In a sense, you could forgive the English during the time of Edward I and Henry VIII, because back then they didn't know anything about mass psychology and holding grudges.  They all thought like didge: I'm gonna kick your ass!  

Now, with what we know about attitude and opinion, and holding together a political consensus in a pluralist age, the question is simple...do you want Union or not?  Because, without the EU y'all ain't gonna have Scotland or N.I.

Y'all just handed the silver platter to the anti-Unionists.

The Scots were given a chance to leave the UK, and they chose not to take it. How does that equate to England kicking the Scots around?

I think they will be leaving now, given the changed circumstances. But it's a good thing. I was sorry they didn't vote for freedom the first time. Takes some getting use to, I suppose.

The Devil, You Know wrote:the EU told her to bugger off as irrelevant today.. there is a thread.

wee jimmy krankie

As your article states, the EU doesn't want to be accused in buggering in UK politics at this early time. That's probably the appropriate response. FCS, your fookin' PM just resigned because of the turmoil surrounding the Brexit vote.

That said, I'd bet the talks are taking place round the back door as we speak.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:the EU told her to bugger off as irrelevant today.. there is a thread.

wee jimmy krankie

As your article states, the EU doesn't want to be accused in buggering in UK politics at this early time.  That's probably the appropriate response.  FCS, your fookin' PM just resigned because of the turmoil surrounding the Brexit vote.

That said, I'd bet the talks are taking place round the back door as we speak.  

should you be commenting on either of those topics as you are neither scottish nor british.

see how your comment works now?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As your article states, the EU doesn't want to be accused in buggering in UK politics at this early time.  That's probably the appropriate response.  FCS, your fookin' PM just resigned because of the turmoil surrounding the Brexit vote.

That said, I'd bet the talks are taking place round the back door as we speak.  

should you be commenting on either of those topics as you are neither scottish nor british.

see how your comment works now?

As I said, there is no Britain anymore. And I'm more Scottish than any Anglander.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:the EU told her to bugger off as irrelevant today.. there is a thread.

wee jimmy krankie

As your article states, the EU doesn't want to be accused in buggering in UK politics at this early time.  That's probably the appropriate response.  FCS, your fookin' PM just resigned because of the turmoil surrounding the Brexit vote.

That said, I'd bet the talks are taking place round the back door as we speak.  

should you be commenting on either of those topics as you are neither scottish nor british.

see how your comment works now?

He has more British (Scottish) backbone in his blood than you could ever have and knows more about this country than you. At least he never scuttled off to another country and beat his own country down in the way you have.

Oh the shame.

Has anyone came up with any evidence that Quill's analysis of the legal position is wrong yet.

The UK government can of course ride roughshod over Scotland but then we have a constitutional crisis and a few years in court to sort it all out.

Anyone?

We had a uk referendum... uk voted out...


Scotland is part of this uk wide decision and bound by the UK result.

Tommy Monk wrote:We had a uk referendum... uk voted out...

Ancient history, toms.  We've got different circumstances now.

Tommy Monk wrote:Scotland is part of this uk wide decision and bound by the UK result.

Temporarily, yes.  But I'm betting the UK is gone. Scotland now has no incentive to stay with the UK. It's a chess game, tommy. You've gotta think 3 - 4 moves ahead.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Scots were given a chance to leave the UK, and they chose not to take it. How does that equate to England kicking the Scots around?

I think they will be leaving now, given the changed circumstances.  But it's a good thing.  I was sorry they didn't vote for freedom the first time.  Takes some getting use to, I suppose.

I'd be happy with that too. We don't need trouble makers like that around.

Irn Bru wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
should you be commenting on either of those topics as you are neither scottish nor british.

see how your comment works now?

He has more British (Scottish) backbone in his blood than you could ever have and knows more about this country than you. At least he never scuttled off to another country and beat his own country down in the way you have.

Oh the shame.

You're generally an intelligent person Bru, but sucking up to Quill does you no favours. He didn't even know who Nicola Sturgeon was ...

He's not a Brit, he'll never be a Brit, and he knows nothing about being a Brit.

Irn Bru wrote:Has anyone came up with any evidence that Quill's analysis of the legal position is wrong yet.

The UK government can of course ride roughshod over Scotland but then we have a constitutional crisis and a few years in court to sort it all out.

Anyone?

The UK Government wouldn't be riding roughshod over Scotland, it would be the other way round. It would Scotland going against the democratic wishes of the UK - a nation they freely decided they wanted to be part of. They're the ones who are traitors.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

He has more British (Scottish) backbone in his blood than you could ever have and knows more about this country than you. At least he never scuttled off to another country and beat his own country down in the way you have.

Oh the shame.

You're generally an intelligent person Bru, but sucking up to Quill does you no favours. He didn't even know who Nicola Sturgeon was ...

He's not a Brit, he'll never be a Brit, and he knows nothing about being a Brit.

Meh...what does it matter? There is no Brit...no more. There's English, and there's Scottish. But no British.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
should you be commenting on either of those topics as you are neither scottish nor british.

see how your comment works now?

As I said, there is no Britain anymore.  And I'm more Scottish than any Anglander.  

so you know the heritage of every person who posts here?
without wishing to be rude, that is an extremely arrogant and may I say ignorant position to take.

Irn Bru wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
should you be commenting on either of those topics as you are neither scottish nor british.

see how your comment works now?

He has more British (Scottish) backbone in his blood than you could ever have and knows more about this country than you. At least he never scuttled off to another country and beat his own country down in the way you have.

Oh the shame.

shame the same cannot be said for you, someone who has commitment issues.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Has anyone came up with any evidence that Quill's analysis of the legal position is wrong yet.

The UK government can of course ride roughshod over Scotland but then we have a constitutional crisis and a few years in court to sort it all out.

Anyone?

The UK Government wouldn't be riding roughshod over Scotland, it would be the other way round. It would Scotland going against the democratic wishes of the UK - a nation they freely decided they wanted to be part of. They're the ones who are traitors.

There are three players here: the Scottish, the English and the UK. The UK is a fiction made up of Scotland and England. No one would be riding roughshod over anyone if we let the UK fade into history.

Now I know that we have tried the breakup of the UK earlier, but that was under different circumstances. Here you have a real antinomy. Section 29 of the Scotland Act says that EU law must be followed in Scotland. How can that happen if the UK withdraws from the EU?

The only way it can happen is if England withdraws from the EU, but Scotland stays. And the only way that that can happen is......

Irn Bru wrote:Has anyone came up with any evidence that Quill's analysis of the legal position is wrong yet.

The UK government can of course ride roughshod over Scotland but then we have a constitutional crisis and a few years in court to sort it all out.

Anyone?

well the eu has said the uk as a whole voted to leave. scotland has not joined the eu, the united kingdom did.

how do those sour grapes taste?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:We had a uk referendum... uk voted out...

Ancient history, toms.  We've got different circumstances now.

Tommy Monk wrote:Scotland is part of this uk wide decision and bound by the UK result.

Temporarily, yes.  But I'm betting the UK is gone.  Scotland now has no incentive to stay with the UK.  It's a chess game, tommy.  You've gotta think 3 - 4 moves ahead.

no you haven't the united kingdom decided to leave, just because some refuse to accept a democratic vote because it does not got heir way does not change the vote.

which way did you vote by the way?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:We had a uk referendum... uk voted out...

Ancient history, toms.  We've got different circumstances now.

Tommy Monk wrote:Scotland is part of this uk wide decision and bound by the UK result.

Temporarily, yes.  But I'm betting the UK is gone.  Scotland now has no incentive to stay with the UK.  It's a chess game, tommy.  You've gotta think 3 - 4 moves ahead.

last poll on independence after the referendum thursday had 45% stay 42 leave.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:We had a uk referendum... uk voted out...

Ancient history, toms.  We've got different circumstances now.

Tommy Monk wrote:Scotland is part of this uk wide decision and bound by the UK result.

Temporarily, yes.  But I'm betting the UK is gone.  Scotland now has no incentive to stay with the UK.  It's a chess game, tommy.  You've gotta think 3 - 4 moves ahead.

if scotland chooses to leave do you think those in the rest of the united kingdom should whine and shout and stamp their feet and over turn the vote?
I dont, I would accept the decision just like I accepted the decision last time they had the once in a generation vote, and vote overwhelmingly to stay

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

He has more British (Scottish) backbone in his blood than you could ever have and knows more about this country than you. At least he never scuttled off to another country and beat his own country down in the way you have.

Oh the shame.

You're generally an intelligent person Bru, but sucking up to Quill does you no favours. He didn't even know who Nicola Sturgeon was ...

He's not a Brit, he'll never be a Brit, and he knows nothing about being a Brit.

on that issue neither does iron brows

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As I said, there is no Britain anymore.  And I'm more Scottish than any Anglander.  

so you know the heritage of every person who posts here?
without wishing to be rude, that is an extremely arrogant and may I say ignorant position to take.

The heritage of every person who posts it's of no consequence when all we are doing is sorting out the political/legal relationship between to separate entities. Scotland is legally compelled to follow one set of laws, England another. That spells a fork in the road.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're generally an intelligent person Bru, but sucking up to Quill does you no favours. He didn't even know who Nicola Sturgeon was ...

He's not a Brit, he'll never be a Brit, and he knows nothing about being a Brit.

on that issue neither does iron brows

It's very interesting that the RW doesn't want to delve too deeply into the reasoning for something, or anything. There comes a point when the RW gets lost in jingos and jargon. I think it's a lack of energy...and practice.

Now, let's get back to the subject. Do you not agree that England and Scotland are on a collision course, the only resolution for which is the breakup of the UK?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The UK Government wouldn't be riding roughshod over Scotland, it would be the other way round. It would Scotland going against the democratic wishes of the UK - a nation they freely decided they wanted to be part of. They're the ones who are traitors.

There are three players here: the Scottish, the English and the UK.  The UK is a fiction made up of Scotland and England.  No one would be riding roughshod over anyone if we let the UK fade into history.

Now I know that we have tried the breakup of the UK earlier, but that was under different circumstances.  Here you have a real antinomy.  Section 29 of the Scotland Act says that EU law must be followed in Scotland.  How can that happen if the UK withdraws from the EU?

The only way it can happen is if England withdraws from the EU, but Scotland stays.  And the only way that that can happen is......

no the united kingdom is made up of 4 countries. those 4 coutries will be leaving the EU as an entity.

scotland may or may not choose to leave the union, polls suggest it wont, but if it does it will have to apply like all the eastern european country's and fulfuil the economic requirements to join, of course the EU has been known to fudge those in the past, but never the less thems the rules.
It will be required to accept the euro, a currency that is going down the pan without any help from the united kingdom.
It would no doubt be vetoed by spain who would not want to encourage their own separatist movements. And then scotland would be adrift without a currency and no one to bail them out.
the UK does not have to allow scotland use of our currency if they leave so they could be on their own for a decade or more with no currency and no friends to ultimately be rejected by the EU.
can you tell me that scenario is not possible.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
so you know the heritage of every person who posts here?
without wishing to be rude, that is an extremely arrogant and may I say ignorant position to take.

The heritage of every person who posts it's of no consequence when all we are doing is sorting out the political/legal relationship between to separate entities.  Scotland is legally compelled to follow one set of laws, England another.  That spells a fork in the road.

but you just said a number of us shouldn't comment because we arent scottish. really you must take a consistent view. OK I accept you say you are scottish, well have scottish antecedents at least, but surely your own logic should tell you that you cannot comment on any english matters, or do you actually mean I am more important than you and you opinions dont matter?

now which way did you vote on the independence issue and referendum?

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
on that issue neither does iron brows

It's very interesting that the RW doesn't want to delve too deeply into the reasoning for something, or anything.  There comes a point when the RW gets lost in jingos and jargon.  I think it's a lack of energy...and practice.

Now, let's get back to the subject.  Do you not agree that England and Scotland are on a collision course, the only resolution for which is the breakup of the UK?

well its no different from you saying our opinions dont matter because we arent this or that group.

which way did you vote on the independence issue and referendum?

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
on that issue neither does iron brows

It's very interesting that the RW doesn't want to delve too deeply into the reasoning for something, or anything.  There comes a point when the RW gets lost in jingos and jargon.  I think it's a lack of energy...and practice.

Now, let's get back to the subject.  Do you not agree that England and Scotland are on a collision course, the only resolution for which is the breakup of the UK?

extending your logic to its logical conclusion, should you not comment on trump because you are not, I presume, a republican?

or not comment on Hilliary because you are not a democrat

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
so you know the heritage of every person who posts here?
without wishing to be rude, that is an extremely arrogant and may I say ignorant position to take.

The heritage of every person who posts it's of no consequence when all we are doing is sorting out the political/legal relationship between to separate entities.  Scotland is legally compelled to follow one set of laws, England another.  That spells a fork in the road.

but you have said it does a few times.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There are three players here: the Scottish, the English and the UK.  The UK is a fiction made up of Scotland and England.  No one would be riding roughshod over anyone if we let the UK fade into history.

Now I know that we have tried the breakup of the UK earlier, but that was under different circumstances.  Here you have a real antinomy.  Section 29 of the Scotland Act says that EU law must be followed in Scotland.  How can that happen if the UK withdraws from the EU?

The only way it can happen is if England withdraws from the EU, but Scotland stays.  And the only way that that can happen is......

no the united kingdom is made up of 4 countries. those 4 coutries will be leaving the EU as an entity.

But, as we have already covered, that would violate UK law.  Section 29 of the Scotland Act compels Scotland to follow EU law.  How are you going to get rid of that?  Under devolution, you need the permission of Holyrood--Section 28 of the Scotland Act holds: “But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Under devolution (the Sewel Convention) there are two (call them) no-no areas for the UK: 1) those devolved policy areas, and 2) anything that will adjust the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.  In either of these areas, the UK must first obtain the permission of Holyrood.   Because to change section 29 you are changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the UK must ask Scotland's permission.  

It ain't gonna happen, pal.  Scotland is not going to grant permission to the UK when, in fact, it would prefer not to leave the EU.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
no the united kingdom is made up of 4 countries. those 4 coutries will be leaving the EU as an entity.

But, as we have already covered, that would violate UK law.  Section 29 of the Scotland Act compels Scotland to follow EU law.  How are you going to get rid of that?  Under devolution, you need the permission of Holyrood--Section 28 of the Scotland Act holds: “But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Under devolution (the Sewel Convention) there are two (call them) no-no areas for the UK: 1) those devolved policy areas, and 2) anything that will adjust the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.  In either of these areas, the UK must first obtain the permission of Holyrood.   Because to change section 29 you are changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the UK must ask Scotland's permission.  

It ain't gonna happen, pal.  Scotland is not going to grant permission to the UK when, in fact, it would prefer not to leave the EU.

article 50 of the lisbon treaty explains it in a nutshell. I am not sure any member of the SNP's signature is on that document though.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
no the united kingdom is made up of 4 countries. those 4 coutries will be leaving the EU as an entity.

But, as we have already covered, that would violate UK law.  Section 29 of the Scotland Act compels Scotland to follow EU law.  How are you going to get rid of that?  Under devolution, you need the permission of Holyrood--Section 28 of the Scotland Act holds: “But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Under devolution (the Sewel Convention) there are two (call them) no-no areas for the UK: 1) those devolved policy areas, and 2) anything that will adjust the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.  In either of these areas, the UK must first obtain the permission of Holyrood.   Because to change section 29 you are changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the UK must ask Scotland's permission.  

It ain't gonna happen, pal.  Scotland is not going to grant permission to the UK when, in fact, it would prefer not to leave the EU.

scotland does not have to grant permission for the united kingdom triggering article 50 of the lisbon treaty.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
no the united kingdom is made up of 4 countries. those 4 coutries will be leaving the EU as an entity.

But, as we have already covered, that would violate UK law.  Section 29 of the Scotland Act compels Scotland to follow EU law.  How are you going to get rid of that?  Under devolution, you need the permission of Holyrood--Section 28 of the Scotland Act holds: “But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Under devolution (the Sewel Convention) there are two (call them) no-no areas for the UK: 1) those devolved policy areas, and 2) anything that will adjust the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.  In either of these areas, the UK must first obtain the permission of Holyrood.   Because to change section 29 you are changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the UK must ask Scotland's permission.  

It ain't gonna happen, pal.  Scotland is not going to grant permission to the UK when, in fact, it would prefer not to leave the EU.

have you forgotten which way you voted in the scottish independence and eu referenda?

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
no the united kingdom is made up of 4 countries. those 4 coutries will be leaving the EU as an entity.

But, as we have already covered, that would violate UK law.  Section 29 of the Scotland Act compels Scotland to follow EU law.  How are you going to get rid of that?  Under devolution, you need the permission of Holyrood--Section 28 of the Scotland Act holds: “But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Under devolution (the Sewel Convention) there are two (call them) no-no areas for the UK: 1) those devolved policy areas, and 2) anything that will adjust the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.  In either of these areas, the UK must first obtain the permission of Holyrood.   Because to change section 29 you are changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the UK must ask Scotland's permission.  

It ain't gonna happen, pal.  Scotland is not going to grant permission to the UK when, in fact, it would prefer not to leave the EU.

it seems you are getting a tad, as we say here, over tired, what makes you think I am your pal, are you not used to people disagreeing with your mistaken viewpoint?

now I am off to the pool and beach to splash around with my toddler who does not have as big hissy fits as #generationSnowflake and their enablers.
I will be back to find out which way you voted in the EU and scottish referenda.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But, as we have already covered, that would violate UK law.  Section 29 of the Scotland Act compels Scotland to follow EU law.  How are you going to get rid of that?  Under devolution, you need the permission of Holyrood--Section 28 of the Scotland Act holds: “But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Under devolution (the Sewel Convention) there are two (call them) no-no areas for the UK: 1) those devolved policy areas, and 2) anything that will adjust the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.  In either of these areas, the UK must first obtain the permission of Holyrood.   Because to change section 29 you are changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the UK must ask Scotland's permission.  

It ain't gonna happen, pal.  Scotland is not going to grant permission to the UK when, in fact, it would prefer not to leave the EU.

article 50 of the lisbon treaty explains it in a nutshell. I am not sure any member of the SNP's signature is on that document though.

So...your answer is to ignore point. Let us know how that goes...

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But, as we have already covered, that would violate UK law.  Section 29 of the Scotland Act compels Scotland to follow EU law.  How are you going to get rid of that?  Under devolution, you need the permission of Holyrood--Section 28 of the Scotland Act holds: “But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Under devolution (the Sewel Convention) there are two (call them) no-no areas for the UK: 1) those devolved policy areas, and 2) anything that will adjust the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.  In either of these areas, the UK must first obtain the permission of Holyrood.   Because to change section 29 you are changing the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the UK must ask Scotland's permission.  

It ain't gonna happen, pal.  Scotland is not going to grant permission to the UK when, in fact, it would prefer not to leave the EU.

have you forgotten which way you voted in the scottish independence and eu referenda?

That's ancient history. This is changed circumstances, which you guys created.