General / Off-Topic The SNP is wrong. There has been no material change in circumstances.

[Javert]

I have a question.

If the UK gov't refuses to allow a referendum at the time the Scottish gov's wants it, could they go ahead anyway and hold an advisory referendum?

Do they have the legal powers and access to the logistical tools required to carry out a referendum like that to international standards?

 

[Lianachan]

I have a question.

If the UK gov't refuses to allow a referendum at the time the Scottish gov's wants it, could they go ahead anyway and hold an advisory referendum?

Do they have the legal powers and access to the logistical tools required to carry out a referendum like that to international standards?

Legally, I think it's a bit of a grey area - I'm not convinced anybody actually knows. But yes, more than capable of running one.

 

[Moonax IRL]

I have a question.

If the UK gov't refuses to allow a referendum at the time the Scottish gov's wants it, could they go ahead anyway and hold an advisory referendum?

Do they have the legal powers and access to the logistical tools required to carry out a referendum like that to international standards?

Logistics wise, they have PR elections and had a referendum previously, I`m sure its a non issue. As for international oversight the OECD can be requested by Scotland to oversee the referendum and its proper implementation. As part of that oversight, OECD personnel will monitor voting stations and will also monitor media reporting and coverage of the said event up to six months previous to the actual vote. They will watch for media bias and the use of project fear, the BBC and others will not likely welcome such oversight as it may bring to light some embarrassing facts and burst the perceived bubble of impartially.

Obviously the referendum will likely be only advisory but I can`t see how the British state can ignore same especially if the turnout and participation is anything like the 2104 ref. If I were the Scottish government I would definitely be asking the OECD to take an active oversight on the issue.

 

[JeffRyan]

I'm pro-independence, I'm pro-European. I understand what it means, I understand we probably have to apply for European membership. That's fine.

I also understand that we need to know how the Scottish people feel. I'd even say let's go for a super-majority (which I expect we pro-independent, pro-Europeans would lose) to quell any negativity if we did actually win. Totally legit, totally pro-independence.

 

[Moonax IRL]

I'm pro-independence, I'm pro-European. I understand what it means, I understand we probably have to apply for European membership. That's fine.

I also understand that we need to know how the Scottish people feel. I'd even say let's go for a super-majority (which I expect we pro-independent, pro-Europeans would lose) to quell any negativity if we did actually win. Totally legit, totally pro-independence.

Why would you go for a super majority when Brexit was not such, KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid, 50+1% and job done.

 

[Minonian]

I have a question.

If the UK gov't refuses to allow a referendum at the time the Scottish gov's wants it, could they go ahead anyway and hold an advisory referendum?

Do they have the legal powers and access to the logistical tools required to carry out a referendum like that to international standards?

Well...

If an advisory referendum was good enough to the UK to quit, (after all the people wishes must be accepted!) than it must be good enough To Scotland too... If they don't accept it, or don't let it? How i say it?

Double standards!

 

[Javert]

Logistics wise, they have PR elections and had a referendum previously, I`m sure its a non issue. As for international oversight the OECD can be requested by Scotland to oversee the referendum and its proper implementation. As part of that oversight, OECD personnel will monitor voting stations and will also monitor media reporting and coverage of the said event up to six months previous to the actual vote. They will watch for media bias and the use of project fear, the BBC and others will not likely welcome such oversight as it may bring to light some embarrassing facts and burst the perceived bubble of impartially.

Obviously the referendum will likely be only advisory but I can`t see how the British state can ignore same especially if the turnout and participation is anything like the 2104 ref. If I were the Scottish government I would definitely be asking the OECD to take an active oversight on the issue.

Yes I probably didn't think the question through very well, but I think what I really meant was whether the Scottish gov't actually have the legal power to spend the money required to carry out a referendum without permission from the UK gov't. If they don't have that power, the UK gov't could go to court and stop them from spending the money required - referendums are expensive.

Leaving aside whether that would be politically good or not, I'm just wondering what the legal situation is.

 

[Moonax IRL]

It's a vacuous argument. Even if Scotland is out of the EU and has to reapply - and on the assumption that such a claim is designed to dissuade people from voting Yes due to EU membership inconvenience - the alternative is to vote No and get hard Brexit... That's worse EU membership inconvenience!



Not many people around here seem to be aware of that distinction. I have said, umpteen times and often to the same people repeatedly, that the Scotland/UK relationship is entirely different from the UK/EU one.

Agreed, its hard to imagine that some people can be so dense that they cannot see the obvious difference, they must either have extremely poor comprehension skills or have been looking out the window for the entire period of their supposed education.

 

[The Kerbinator]

I disagree.

If you want "independence" then there is no justification for seeking to remain part of the EU.
If you are concerned with the economic implications of being outside the EU then it's just pant-on-head ridiculous to seek independence from the UK.
In both options, hypocrisy is rife.

This is the argument of an abusive partner. "If you can't have me you can't have anyone".

 

[Minonian]

This is the argument of an abusive partner. "If you can't have me you can't have anyone".

Thats right.

 

[Moonax IRL]

Yes I probably didn't think the question through very well, but I think what I really meant was whether the Scottish gov't actually have the legal power to spend the money required to carry out a referendum without permission from the UK gov't. If they don't have that power, the UK gov't could go to court and stop them from spending the money required - referendums are expensive.

Leaving aside whether that would be politically good or not, I'm just wondering what the legal situation is.

C`mon Javert, this is a nation your talking about, not some committee meeting. If the Scottish government want to hold a referendum there is nothing Westminster can do to stop it. They can refuse to recognise the result but then you are getting into a whole different conversation.

 

[Minonian]

C`mon Javert, this is a nation your talking about, not some committee meeting. If the Scottish government want to hold a referendum there is nothing Westminster can do to stop it. They can refuse to recognise the result but then you are getting into a whole different conversation.

Aye in the very second they are refusing it, and with it start using double standards? IT's become apparent to everyone they are nothing more, than just a fake selfish (insert rude word there).

 

[Siobhan]

Aye in the very second they are refusing it, and with it start using double standards? IT's become apparent to everyone they are nothing more, than just a fake selfish (insert rude word there).

The word you're looking for is "Failing", or at least that's what Trump would say...

They will refuse to accept it of course, or at least try. I wonder how the press would have reacted if the EU had refused to accept the Brexit vote because it was only advisory.

 

[JeffRyan]

Why would you go for a super majority when Brexit was not such, KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid, 50+1% and job done.

Brexit wasn't even a 'real' referendum, just advisory. Of course, now it's 'the will of the British people'.

As to why.... Brexit should have been a binding super-majority for such a major change in Britain's position, I see no reason as to why my own preferred referendum shouldn't be done the way it's supposed to be.

 

[Minonian]

The word you're looking for is "Failing", or at least that's what Trump would say...

They will refuse to accept it of course, or at least try. I wonder how the press would have reacted if the EU had refused to accept the Brexit vote because it was only advisory.

Uhum. They will go mad. And EU can still do that, (although unlikely) after all just like you said? It legally non binding, so they are not obliged to accept it. And IF westminster refuses Scotland? They are creating an example case.

In case they are accepting it? UK falling to pieces.

Stalemate.

 

[Moonax IRL]

Brexit wasn't even a 'real' referendum, just advisory. Of course, now it's 'the will of the British people'.

As to why.... Brexit should have been a binding super-majority for such a major change in Britain's position, I see no reason as to why my own preferred referendum shouldn't be done the way it's supposed to be.

As someone who has voted in numerous referendums, its 50+1%, the majority carries the day. These things are extremely simple, over complication is not needed. Assess the facts, come to a decision and then vote accordingly. Its not rocket science.

 

[Javert]

Brexit wasn't even a 'real' referendum, just advisory. Of course, now it's 'the will of the British people'.

As to why.... Brexit should have been a binding super-majority for such a major change in Britain's position, I see no reason as to why my own preferred referendum shouldn't be done the way it's supposed to be.

Hmmm. Well the answer to this is that the Brexit referendum also should have required a super majority, which is what I was arguing from the beginning before it was even declared. Major changes to the constitutional arrangements of a nation should require more than just a simple majority in my opinion. USA also seems to agree since they require two thirds of both houses before changing the constitution.

C`mon Javert, this is a nation your talking about, not some committee meeting. If the Scottish government want to hold a referendum there is nothing Westminster can do to stop it. They can refuse to recognise the result but then you are getting into a whole different conversation.

I understand, but legally, the Scottish parliament has been devolved certain powers that it is allowed to exercise. Those power may or may not include holding a referendum. They do already exclude making a decision for Scottish Independence but I don't know the wording or extent of that. If they don't include holding a referendum, it means the Scottish government would be technically overstepping their powers and spending public money in a way that they are not legally allowed to do. I'm tempted to say that actually, yes the Scottish parliament is in fact a committee, albeit a very large one with much more sweeping powers than a local council. It is not a sovereign parliament that can decide any law it wants (otherwise presumably we wouldn't be having the debate in the first place )

To use an extreme example, this would be the same if the Scottish government today decided to set up an army and start purchasing fighter jets - they don't actually have the legal power to do that under UK law and they are still currently part of the UK. Once fully independent, they could then start doing so.

If they are overstepping their powers, such a referendum could be halted by a court order, which is different to being halted by the Westminster parliament. This court action could be brought by anybody, not just the UK gov't, so it's a relevant point to whether they would try to execute such a plan.

Now, whether this would be a politically good idea is a separate question and I tried to make that clear.

(This point also illustrates the question above about sovereignty - the EU cannot stop the UK holding any referendum it likes, but the UK can legally stop Scotland from doing so, in theory at least).

 

[Moonax IRL]

Hmmm. Well the answer to this is that the Brexit referendum also should have required a super majority, which is what I was arguing from the beginning before it was even declared. Major changes to the constitutional arrangements of a nation should require more than just a simple majority in my opinion. USA also seems to agree since they require two thirds of both houses before changing the constitution.



I understand, but legally, the Scottish parliament has been devolved certain powers that it is allowed to exercise. Those power may or may not include holding a referendum. They do already exclude making a decision for Scottish Independence but I don't know the wording or extent of that. If they don't include holding a referendum, it means the Scottish government would be technically overstepping their powers and spending public money in a way that they are not legally allowed to do. I'm tempted to say that actually, yes the Scottish parliament is in fact a committee, albeit a very large one with much more sweeping powers than a local council. It is not a sovereign parliament that can decide any law it wants (otherwise presumably we wouldn't be having the debate in the first place )

To use an extreme example, this would be the same if the Scottish government today decided to set up an army and start purchasing fighter jets - they don't actually have the legal power to do that under UK law and they are still currently part of the UK. Once fully independent, they could then start doing so.

If they are overstepping their powers, such a referendum could be halted by a court order, which is different to being halted by the Westminster parliament. This court action could be brought by anybody, not just the UK gov't, so it's a relevant point to whether they would try to execute such a plan.

Now, whether this would be a politically good idea is a separate question and I tried to make that clear.

(This point also illustrates the question above about sovereignty - the EU cannot stop the UK holding any referendum it likes, but the UK can legally stop Scotland from doing so, in theory at least).

There is nothing to stop the Scottish government physically holding a ref, but as I said Westminster could ignore the result for a multitude of legal and technical reasons. If they did, then as I said that is a whole different conversation, but I will say this, national self determination will not be held back by legal or technical arguments. If at the end of the day a majority of Scots vote for independence in a ref that has not been fraudulent in any way, then Indy will happen.

The British government ignored the democratic will of the Irish people after the 1918 election and a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) was declared resulting in an Irish Parliament convened in Dublin in 1919. The British sent in the army to arrest everyone and war followed, at the end of which the result was British withdrawal.

The moral of the story is, if you are the little boy with his finger in the dyke, its only a matter of time before you are going to get swept away. Legal and technical arguments are Westminster`s finger in the dyke, its not going to hold back the inevitable. The British state should be coming to terms with the reality of a rapidly changing landscape and plan for same.

 

[Lianachan]

This just in.

 

[Minonian]

After the terms clear? It's only going to be clear after it's triggered. This is what TM wants, so she can keep the mover advantage to herself. Don't let it!