Can you explain how the UK is sovereign over a voluntary union.
The UK is built on a voluntary union between two states. There is no constitutional bar to separation except in your mind.
If the sovereign people of Scotland vote for independence, independence will follow as night follows day.
Westminster is the final authority within the UK - it is sovereign in that sense. It could abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow if the votes were there, and it would be perfectly legal. But that’s not how it works in real life. Westminster is, as these things go, a pretty pragmatic and fair institution, hence the 79 referendum, the devo vote and the recent indy ref.
However, it would be unwise for the SNP to go stomping about with its 30 or 40 MPs after the next election - better to be a sober partner enabling some stability UK-wide. Sure, set some red lines in exchange for confidence and supply, but remember, a new indy ref is in Westminster’s gift.
If the UK Parliament passes laws to allow it, yes it will. There’s no reason or precedent for them doing so if they haven’t previously agreed to be bound by the referendum, though.
As we discussed at length in the previous thread.
The people of Scotland are not an independent sovereign people, they are participants in one of the oldest and most stable democracies in the world. Any claim that denying one small region of the UK the right to leave is undemocratic is nonsense.
Clearly you still don’t understand what independence entails for a region wishing to become a country. It’s not something that can happen unilaterally, it requires the recognition of a large amount of other countries. Usually, but not necessarily, including the country they wish to become independent from.
Technically it is sovereign. If push came to shove and there was a clear Scottish decision via referendum for separation, what the realpolitik situation would be.
I fully expect that control over future separation referenda will pass to Holyrood as a quid pro quo for confidence and supply if Labour are allowed to form a minority government. Even without, the moral case for Home Rule at least will be very difficult to oppose.
In your humble opinion.
Let us see what happens after May 7th.
Could you please fuck off with the snide “small region” guff please. It’s very irritating, even to those of us who aren’t crazy-eyed nationalists, and makes you look like an arrogant arse. Cheers.
That is never going to happen, sorry.
When the SNP fuck off with the “ruled by London” bollocks, certainly.
No, not at all, everything in that post was fact. Scotland would need either the UK or the UN to recognise its independence, and probably the EU as well. And the latter won’t happen without the UK’s recognition, because of Spain.
In reality, if there was a genuine demand for independence from Scotland, it would eventually be granted by the UK. But, in case you’ve forgotten, there was a referendum binding on all sides last year, where the Scottish people clearly indicated they don’t want independence, so it’s a moot point for the next few parliaments.
The Smith commission has already devolved sovereign powers over political areas to Holyrood. Control over decisions on future referenda about the future of Scotland are next.
I strongly expect this to be a quid pro quo for support for a minority government in May.
A conclusive referendum for home rule or independence could not easily be ignored without surrendering considerable democratic legitimacy.
The question of further devolution or home rule has yet to be addressed by be Scottish electorate.
It would be difficult for a minority government dependent on SNP confidence and supply to oppose a unilateral vote on Scottish devolution, home rule or independence.
A further referendum attempting to overturn a binding referendum held last year could not be held without also surrendering democratic legitimacy. The SNP and other Scottish nationalists are already ignoring the democratically expressed wishes of the Scots, so they have no moral high ground here.
Correct. It’s not been addressed by the electorate of the rest of the UK, either.
Such a government would immediately lose the confidence of Parliament, as there’s no way Labour could get all its MPs to support it, and lose the popular vote. It won’t happen.
OK, so you are happy to casually patronise the majority of Scottish people. Says a lot about you, to be honest.
On this we agree.
Agreed, but the subsequent government would still have to cope with having a nation in revolt and demanding an amendment to their national position, or failing that, independence.
There won’t be a “nation in revolt”, as Scotland voted to remain part of the Union. If it had wanted independence, the offer was there.
It was rejected, and now we should be working for the benefit of the Union, not against it. Everybody, including those bitter sore losers up there.
In your humble opinion again.
Independence was rejected, Devomax and Home Rule were not even offered.
The rUK may be forced to decide between the current strong desire (according to opinion polls) for considerable further devolution, on the one hand, and chaotic collapse into Independence.
Certainly the support for Nationalist parties is considerably higher currently than Unionist ones, and much of he supposedly unionist votes are falling to the Greens, SSP, and SNP.
If GB 2016 election results in a third period of SNP government, the pressure for further devolution sill increase and be difficult to oppose.
A minor sidelight on the UK election:
I think the correct answer is “the heat death of the Universe”.
An interesting analysis from yesterday’s guardian.
It confirms the swing from Labour and LibDem to SNP and Green and has interviews with swing voters giving their reasons for abandoning their previous loyalties. The BBC did an interesting voxpop in Perth yesterday which found the same thing, explaining why the Conservatives are unlikely to win it back.
There is a tendency at the moment for voters to punish Unionist parties, even if they voted for NO in the referendum.