What Part Of The Recent High Court Judgement Is Not Clear?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/snp-reveals-new-plan-to-secure-indyref2-without-westminster-backing-12767700
....The court said they cannot hold a referendum without UK government approval, so they think introducing a "bill" will somehow make it legal? Let it go love!

[naomi24]

If they succeed it will be legal. I wish they’d just let them get on with it.

[ToraToraTora]

SNP have only 48 seats in the UK parliament, how are though going to get the Scotland Act Changed? Both Labour and the Tories are against a referendum.

[naomi24]

Pass.

[Old_Geezer]

Well I'm no expert on either law or politics but it seems to me that no single part of the Union could surely amend the Scotland Act of 1998 without it passing through Westminster first. And if they tried to force it, would that count as treason ? Does the Tower have enough free cells ?

[Mozz71]

I don't see.why it bothers you so much Tora. The more they push, the more I think we should wave them fondly into independence, with no chance of return for at least twenty years. They either sink (in which case, schadenfruede all round) or swim (in which case, good luck to them).

[sandyRoe]

In a partnership of equals can one not opt for a divorce?

[Deskdiary]

To be fair to St Urgeon (and I did vomit a bit in my mouth when I said 'to be fair', because I think she's a despicable woman, on a vanity project, with nary a thought for the consequences to the Scottish people), she can't really "Let it go...", because surely independence is their reason for being.

[THECORBYLOON]

By what definition is an agreement voluntary if one of the parties to that agreement is not allowed to walk away from it?

[Old_Geezer]

The "equals" concept doesn't come into it because a part of something can not consider itself the equal of itself and the other members of that something. That is having representation on both sides, something no other member of in this soecif case, the Union, has. The issue is inevitably a UK one.

One member can of course canvass opinion, and in this specific case has already been allowed to do so; but it would be totally immoral to allow the asking of the same question repeatedly hoping to get a desired answer ONCE and then stopping. Only an utterly immoral group with no regard for anyone or anything other than their own demands supports that sort of behaviour. Now remind me, what group is infamous for doing that in recent history ?

[Old_Geezer]

... SPECIFIC ...

[royfromaus]

THECORBYLOON
By what definition is an agreement voluntary if one of the parties to that agreement is not allowed to walk away from it?
________________________________
It would have been allowed to walk away had it voted for independence. It didn't.
We can't keep having referendums with impunity.

[THECORBYLOON]

ROY, are you saying that in a voluntary agreement, each party is permitted to consider withdrawing from that agreement only the once?

[THECORBYLOON]

Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states
“2 Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power [to hold a poll on remaining part of the UK] 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.

3 The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule.”

Why is it “totally immoral to allow the asking of the same question repeatedly hoping to get a desired answer ONCE and then stopping.” but fine to do it every seven year in Ulster, if need be?

[royfromaus]

THECORBYLOON
ROY, are you saying that in a voluntary agreement, each party is permitted to consider withdrawing from that agreement only the once?
_______________________________
Let me check







Nope.

[THECORBYLOON]

ROY, "We can't keep having referendums with impunity."

It can happen in Ulster on a regular basis so why not in Scotland?

[New Judge]

Because, as I'm sure you know, Corby, the status of Northern Ireland within the UK and the history of how it got there is entirely different to that of Scotland. The Northern Ireland Act which you cite acknowledges that fact.

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, some are arguing it is too soon for another referendum so it is the frequency I am querying.

It's more than seven year since the last Scottish independence referendum so what's the problem with having another?

[New Judge]

//...so what's the problem with having another?//

I don't see any problem with holding another because I suspect the result will be the same as in 2014 (and frankly, I don't care if it isn't). But the Scottish Government (and the SNP particularly) needs to accept that the constitution of the United Kingdom is not within their bailiwick.

Apart from that, despite their name, the party must accept that it has other responsibilities besides seeking - almost to the point of obsession - the break up of the UK. Some of these issues are quite pressing and will not be solved by Scottish Independence.

[Peter Pedant]

What Part Of The Recent High Court Judgement Is Not Clear?
er judging from this thread - - just about all of it, to Abers

The judgement ( see other thread, I cant be arrissed to look it out again) said that a bill in Scotland has to be certified by the Lord Advocate somebody ( call him lord Fou-Fou) as not in a forbidden area .

The Supreme court found that it as not hypothetical ( so they cd give an opinion) and he wd not be able to certify it

so as far as I can see it gets stuck at the Lord Advocate certificate stage.... Nicola ( bless!) might think that a govt can intentionally act against the law.
It cant.

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, "But the Scottish Government (and the SNP particularly) needs to accept that the constitution of the United Kingdom is not within their bailiwick."

As the UK Parliament has a veto on a Scottish independence referendum, how can the Union be voluntary?