The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


The Gambit

Posted on December 05, 2016 by

Unionists got very excited last week about a YouGov poll for the Times which showed that not only had the post-Brexit bump in support for independence been undone, but that it was now (fractionally) below the level recorded in the indyref for the first time since the September 2014 vote.

(It was a slightly curious poll, with a massively disproportionate number – over 27% – of its respondents born outside Scotland, mostly from the rest of the UK, but it was weighted so that shouldn’t have been much of a factor. It also found majority support for a second EU referendum, despite a 30-point margin for Remain, but opposition to a second indyref despite the margin for the Union being just 12 points.)

horses

Nevertheless, given that nothing’s happened since the end of June that ought to have damaged the case for Yes (the oil price is currently at a 12-month high, for example, almost twice what it was in January), the 10% drop in support is a troubling one for the independence movement.

But it shouldn’t be. Because what the poll shows is that there is currently a majority of people in Scotland prepared to vote for independence.

Now, just bear with us for a moment. Obviously that seems counter-intuitive, because only 44% say they’d vote for it tomorrow. But among the 56% who say they wouldn’t are a substantial number who as recently as 2014 actually did vote for independence.

And crucially, when they did that they were voting for a vision of independence that was expressly premised on Scotland remaining in the EU.

wpeu

So we know that within the last two years, a majority of Scots have been willing to vote for independence, just (usually) not all at once. But polls have consistently found that around 12% of people have switched in each direction since the indyref, leaving the final total unchanged.

The reason given in the majority of cases is the Brexit vote – a substantial number of Unionist Remain voters are horrified at the prospect of leaving the EU and willing to back independence to keep Scotland in, but they’ve been balanced by Yes Leavers feeling they’d rather throw in their lot with the UK if it gets them out of Europe.

Readers will recall that this site is something very close to agnostic on the subject of the EU. There are positives and negatives to being part of the trading bloc. But the position of the Yes Leavers who’ve switched to No is a pretty bewildering one. In an interview in this month’s issue of iScot magazine, the strikingly handsome editor of an exceptionally popular pro-independence website (cough) said:

“I have to try quite hard to not get snappy at Yes Leavers, not because I disrespect their views on the EU – I’m almost 50/50 on it – but because it’s such an idiotic assessment of priorities.

The EU has very little (negative) effect on the day-to-day lives of most people, whereas Tory rule from Westminster is a very real rolling 24-7 catastrophe that impacts on nearly everyone nearly all the time, and we need to do something about that right now before the country’s left in completely irretrievable ruin.”

But if we’ve learned anything from the Brexit vote and then the election of Donald Trump as US President (and it’s not at all clear that we have), it’s that it’s no good just yelling that at people and telling them they’re stupid or racist if they don’t agree with you. So how do we solve the problem?

We’re increasingly coming to the view that the answer is for the SNP to commit to a second EU referendum in the event of Scotland becoming independent.

refgeneric

Now, we can hear a lot of people sighing already. FOUR national referendums in the space of about five years (we’re not including the AV one, which nobody cared about) would be an awful lot of democracy and an awful lot of campaigning.

But we can see no other way to cut the Gordian knot of the electorate coming to decisions that contradict each other. Scots currently want to stay in both the UK and the EU, and that simply isn’t possible, no matter how many semantic contortions Unionists try to hide behind about “Scotland” not existing in the context of the EUref.

(There is of course a rather sour argument that if Scots were dumb enough to choose to effectively hand control of their affairs back to England then they’ve got no business whining when England does stuff they hate – indeed that basically IS the argument of the Unionist parties in Scotland, when you boil it down – but we wouldn’t like to be the people making that argument.)

It’s not an easy solution either. The timing and the nature of the question/s would be open to debate, and the politics would be delicate. The EU might not react kindly, for example, to an independent Scotland negotiating its continued membership while it was under the cloud of another referendum.

But mostly the problems are soluble. Everyone knows the arguments backwards by now, so the campaigns could be short. A second indyref in the spring of 2019 could, if successful, be swiftly followed by a Scottish EUref in the autumn.

(You can’t just have a single one with two questions, because if you get a No/Remain result you’re right back where you started.)

Referendums aren’t expensive – £15.8m is loose change in government expenditure – and going to the polling booth again isn’t too onerous a chore to ask of voters when it’s to settle the constitutional debate once and for all this time. (Because however the results went, there really wouldn’t be any legitimate grounds for another referendum on either subject for the imaginable future.)

sitfence

It’s not credible (and not politically sustainable in the long term) to let the fundamental contradiction created by the indyref and EUref simply go unaddressed. But it’s also no good mocking Unionists for being terrified of a second indyref – which they are – if you’re not prepared to apply the same principle to Remainers.

Pro-Europeans could offer the Scottish EUref in confidence of winning, with every party in the Scottish Parliament on their side. Leavers, on the other hand, could accept it on the basis that 38% is a strong starting point to have a fighting chance. And everyone would have the advantage by 2019 of having seen how the UK’s Brexit negotiations had turned out.

The bottom line is that the Venn diagram of support for independence and support for the EU is a horrible tangled mess, and there’s only one acceptable democratic way of sorting it out. If we don’t, then we’re all going to be condemned to arguing bitterly about the constitution for the rest of our lives, something we’re pretty sure nobody – Unionist or nationalist, Remainer or Leaver – really wants.

– if Scotland votes No in a second indyref, knowing for certain in advance that doing so means leaving the EU, there are no grounds for complaint. It’s pretty much impossible to imagine a bigger material change than Brexit. If we can’t win it then, we’re never going to win it.

– if it votes for independence, and then votes to stay in the EU, the Leavers will have been given a fair chance to get their way and will have lost. They’ll be free to keep campaigning, of course, but from so far on the fringes that the debate will be to all intents and purposes over. (Who would be their party, for a start?)

– and if Scotland votes Yes then Leave, then that too will be the unarguable will of the people. By then it’ll be far clearer what Leave means than it was in the UK’s EU referendum, and if voters choose it anyway then so be it.

It’s time for everyone to back their horses and get the race over with.

Print Friendly

    582 to “The Gambit”

    1. Smallaxe says:

      Nana:Good morning,

      The rains a bit warmer here this morning.Kettle’s on.Thank you.

      Peace Always x

    2. Andrew Mclean says:

      KEN500
      The Torys will win the next uk elections, worse than that they may even be in a pact with UKIP, in that domesday scenario, Scotland is in danger of economic and political vandalism of eye-watering force.
      Most English have been brought up on the lie that they financed us, the great GERS swindle just enforced that lie, that’s its design.
      The only reason why Westminster cannot ever allow Scotland to leave is the devastating effect that would have on England’s economy, and when that happens then the English establishment will be at risk of starting a revolution in England, one in which they will not survive.

      Anyone not voting SNP in the next general election risks Scotland’s desolation, and their own families financial ruin. Working class unionists may think they are just getting bye now, and middle class unionists might feel they could weather the storm but no.

      There is a storm coming, in January or February major redundancys will be announced in the Scottish banking sector, that is already agreed at board level. Uk Government infrastructure in Scotland is being cut drastically, again that is a process that is agreed, and is a political move by T Mays government to show its power. In the retail sector major branch closures are being planned, those plans again are embargoed until after the January sales.

      Some of this could have been offset by financial backing by for instance the Chinese, but Westminster ordered that to be stopped, using Amnesty International who then lobbied stupid MSP,s who took the line and ran with it. Willie Rennie was expected enough to realise he was being use, surely he knew. The liberals accounts will be interesting, they seem to be hoarding a lot of money for a party with one MP, and no chance of gaining much more, as for labour Scottish branch office has lost its financial support, without bailing out by head office they will have to sell off their assets if they wish to defeat their fellow red white and blue unionist rivals the tories, who incidentally already are building up there revenues for something.

    3. Liz g says:

      Smallaxe @ 7.47
      Beyond disgusting…..This is not some incident in history.
      This is happening now!!!
      The lease is according to the documentary up for renewal this year (2016) ….there was also some Court Judgement or other a few weeks back….
      A modern version of Clearances right enough….So wish we could do something,but I am at a loss to know what!

    4. Nana says:

      @Smallaxe

      Good morning. Just getting my boots on, hoping it’s not too cold out.

      A few more links for later

      It’s back to the future in the market for junk-rated debt sold by oil companies.
      http://archive.is/3PljE

      https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/uk-labour-mp-ruth-smeeth-was-funded-israel-lobby

      A New Wave of Popular Fury Could Hit Europe in 2017
      http://archive.is/d8Tyc

      http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/12/06/breaking-aleppos-old-city-now-fully-liberated-by-saa-remaining-terrorists-in-retreat/

    5. Dan Huil says:

      A red, white and blue brexit? Well, the blue bit must mean tory; it certainly disnae mean Scotland.

    6. Smallaxe says:

      liz g:

      What does it matter when Betty can supersede the High Court any time she feels like it.Your correct when you say it’s not history,Tony the Terrorist’s government was only very recently in power.

      They gassed all of the pet dogs belonging to the Islanders before they evicted the islanders,as a warning,now they say that £5million pounds a year is too much money to spend on rehoming them.

      Betty needs the money to get her “house” renovated.

      Peace Always x

    7. Ken500 says:

      On the latest By election results and fiddled Polls, The Polls they are considering did not include the SNP 9% of the UK electorate. The Tories especially in London, (50/50) could lose their seats for not listening to their own Constituencies. Hammond, May et al. (Brexit/Heathrow) They did not win the last election but committed electoral fraud in 31 Constituencies. So did UKIP. The Tories have to lose the next election to get out of the mess they have created which will just get worse and worse.

      Amnesty international is funded by George Soros, another International financial crook. A right wing think tank.

    8. One_Scot says:

      So according to Government lawyers, Scotland is not a counrty but just a colony of England. I have to say that does surprise me, I honestly thought that Scotland in union was a partner of equals, I really did.

      You know what, I’m not even sure I’m happy now about the fact that they will use Scotland’s oil to pay for their single market deal. If I didn’t know any better, I would say they may be taking the piss out of us.

    9. Liz g says:

      Smallaxe @ 8.25
      Not forgetting the effect that this has had on the islander’s themselves.
      A snapshot surely of how government can wreck lives covertly.
      Yet another set of mother’s I cannot look in the face.. because of my government….first time I ever said this…
      Thanks a Fucking lot No voter’s.

    10. Ken500 says:

      If the Tories hadn’t committed electoral fraud. The SNP could have held the balance of power in Westminster. A very different outcome for Scotland.

      What the Tory/Unionists and UKIP had done is commit electoral fraud for years.

    11. Liz g says:

      One_Scot @ 9.12
      The bit nobody down south seems to be getting is that…
      If what they say is true…there is no England.
      There is only Britain. (Whatever you hold it to mean)
      Do they really want to confirm this?
      Don’t they want to be English anymore?
      They know there are Scot’s,Welsh and Irish,do they really want to make us all British.
      Because that has to include them.
      Do they need us so much they will allow their Englishness to be written out of history?
      Give it up to be British?
      Sell their very identity for our resources?
      Admit they can’t go it alone?
      Have they ever been asked?
      Won’t somebody ask Mr Nuttal ?

    12. Smallaxe says:

      liz g:

      Maybe Mr Peffers could tell us more about an “Order in Council”.They did their usual trick of slipping it through on an election day,hoping no one would notice.

      Peace Always

    13. dramfineday says:

      Anent pupil performance stats. I was reading about it on Russia Today last night where, in the midst of this article talking about performance from all over the world, was a tweet from the BBC highlighting Scotland’s performance stats. I mean, really?

      I think I smell Galloway and it’s not the fragrant hills I’m talking about.

    14. Nana says:

      Link to Supreme court. Due to start at 10.30am

      https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

    15. yesindyref2 says:

      Ah well, time to ponder on Article 50 awhile which starts:

      1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

      “its own constitutional requirements”

    16. galamcennalath says:

      @Liz g
      @Smallaxe

      Not forgetting the effect that this has had on the islander’s themselves.
      A snapshot surely of how government can wreck lives covertly.

      One of the more disgusting episodes for modern UKOK imperial behaviour.

      And it’s not ancient history …..

      In 1968, the first tactics were implemented to decrease the population of Diego Garcia. Those who left the island – either for vacation or medical purposes – were not allowed to return and those who stayed could obtain only restricted food and medical supplies. This tactic was in hope that those that stayed would leave “willingly”. One of the more gruesome tactics utilised was that of the killings of Chagossian pets. Dogs were carried into sheds where they were gassed in front of their owners.

      In 1971 all inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forecably removed.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

    17. Ken500 says:

      The UK Westminster Gov has cut the Educstion budget since 2008. The Scottish Block Grant has been illegally cut 10% year since 2010. Now £3Billion less. The Westminster Tory Gov has illegally taxed the Scottish Oil and Gas sector at 60% to 80% when the price had fallen 75%. Illegally stopping production. Losing thousands of jobs. The tax is 40% since Jan 2016.

      Now the Scottish Gov has the power more money for education is being raised through council tax. Teacher need training in additional needs. More Tax is being raised by not cutting tax for higher earners. In April the Scottish Gov could have the power to stop sanctioning people. The Westminster Tory Gov is destroying the world economy. Westminster is still illegally destroying the Scottish economy. Keeping it secret under the Official Secrets Act.

      Education standards in the UK have fallen due to cuts in Education spending.

    18. Nana says:

      Humza Yousaf caught driving a friend’s car without proper insurance, so say the bbc

      http://archive.is/kCHiV

      8job centres to close in Glasgow due to tory cuts

      http://archive.is/WDt2Y

    19. gerry parker says:

      Re Diego Garcia.
      British officials applying Brittish values.

      We better watch out.

    20. heedtracker says:

      SLab pile in with another “important intervention.” Apparently the UK is good, the SNP are bad, but have a federal UK and vote SLab again Scotland, says Graun, shock.

      http://archive.is/eTev2

      Meanwhile, oil poor Norway oil and gas revenue forecast 2016 are bigger than Scottish GDP. Where did all that not Scots oil and gas revenue go Kezia, Graun liggers etc?

      http://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/governments-revenues/

      Not Scots oil and gas ran at a loss this year, Norway made rather a lot more,

      Government revenues from petroleum activities are transferred to the Government Pension Fund Global, which at the end of 2015 had holdings with a total value of NOK 7 475 billion. Under the fiscal rule, transfers can be made to the fiscal budget from the Fund to finance important public goods without drawing on the Fund’s capital. In 2016, about one in nine NOK spent over the fiscal budget will come from the Government Pension Fund Global.

    21. heedtracker says:

      My Slovene girlfriend’s also busy this week, like Kez, spreading that good old UKOK goodness. She’s a really good kisser.

      http://www.thehighlandtimes.com/news/2016/12/05/tories-admit-brexit-aim-is-to-%E2%80%9Cnot-get-the-best-deal-for-scotland%E2%80%9D/

    22. davidb says:

      Anent Pisa tests. I know someone who has taught in our country, and in other non European systems. Some other countries pick out their smartest kids to take the tests. We do it the “British” way.

      It is not possible to compare rankings of attainment when not everyone plays by the same rules.

      Then you have the Confucian culture. We are not cultural clones. I would rather we did not judge our performance relative to Eastern societies. You don’t need a degree in Maths to make money nor to have a happy life.

    23. heedtracker says:

      From that crew that farted Carbuncle into the Scottish political stratosphere of teamHGB greatness,

      http://www.thehighlandtimes.com/news/2016/12/05/tories-admit-brexit-aim-is-to-%E2%80%9Cnot-get-the-best-deal-for-scotland%E2%80%9D/

      There’s also some er, unpleasantness expenses wise, with a SLibDem spiv in Edinburgh too.

    24. heedtracker says:

      2nd go, From that crew that farted Carbuncle into the Scottish political stratosphere of teamHGB greatness,

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38234883

      There’s also some er, unpleasantness expenses wise, with a SLibDem spiv in Edinburgh too.

    25. Liz g says:

      Smallaxe @ 9.50
      While I am sure Robert could enlighten us,at this point in time I don’t think it would do us much good.
      The law/Prerogative….aka… ethnic cleansing….the queen took part in was and is taking effect now.
      I would be more interested in the 2016 lease renewal mentioned in the report.
      I and I think you are interested in justice…..
      I want to help the islander’s…
      I don’t know how..
      I don’t have much money.
      But would support The Scottish Government taking an interest.
      In complete reversal of my stay out of the business of other countries position.
      Mainly because of the need to put right an historical wrong.

      If the Islander’s want to and think their future lie’s with facilitating an American military base…..fine
      If the islander’s want a huge tourist industry… also fine.

      IMHO the Scot’s could help…we have people who know about islands .
      The point being….. The Islander’s should decide.
      Repatriate them and if there is really no way of sustaining life….(which I don’t believe)..then use ship’s to support the community until they get organised.
      Also.. Scotland is not a charity….the return for this support….A sweetheart deal for Scottish tourists!!!

      Hey..a girl can dream…have you seen those beaches….but it does show what is possible!!!NO!!

    26. Robert Peffers says:

      Sorry if I’m a bit late with this but I’m just dipping in and out of Wings as I’m very, very busy and also having internet connection problems:

      It took quite an effort to find the information requested and I’d not heard of it before. Eventually I found a bit in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

      Anyone would think they didn’t want us to know about, “Orders in Council”.

      Aye!
      Richt!


      Orders in Council are used when an ordinary statutory instrument would be inappropriate, such as for transferring responsibilities between government departments.

      Order in council, in Great Britain, a regulation issued by the sovereign on the advice of the Privy Council; in modern practice, however, an order is issued only upon the advice of ministers, the minister in charge of the department concerned with the subject matter of the order being responsible to Parliament for its contents.

      In modern practice, there are two distinct types of order in council: that issued under the royal prerogative and that made under a power conferred by a statute. An example of the first type is the order declaring a state of war to be at an end, since the power to make war and peace is a matter of the royal prerogative. Most orders in council, however, are issued to implement legislation passed by Parliament; for example, the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946, arranged for the redistribution of ministerial functions and the dissolution of government departments to be effected by order in council, confirmed by a resolution of both houses of Parliament.

      Orders in council were first issued during the 18th century. Historically, the best known are those issued in November and December 1807, which imposed a blockade on Napoleonic Europe by the British and, in response, the decree by which the French might seize any neutral ship that complied with the British regulations.

    27. Stoker says:

      For anyone who missed it:

      270 Doosan Babcock jobs to go in Renfrewshire
      http://archive.is/2rTHi

      I wonder how many of them voted ‘No’?
      What position did ‘Unite’ take during the Scottish referendum?

    28. louis.b.argyll says:

      Why don’t Wings open crowdfunding..
      To buy Mr P. his own server and upload satellite ..?

    29. Fergus Green says:

      @Stoker 11.23

      Perhaps the Lib Dems can start a crowdfunder, or failing that, the Rowntree Foundation might help them out 🙂

    30. Fergus Green says:

      Oooops

      Above comment should have been addressed to Heedtracker at 10.42.

    31. Meg merrilees says:

      Listening to Lord?/Mr Pannick QC defending his argument brilliantly i.e. that the Royal Prerogative was effectively extinguished by the 1972 Act. One judge thinks that the 2015 Referendum Act removed this ‘clamp’ on the Gov thereby enabling the prerogative to be used.

      Mr. Pannick not having any of it and explaining his view beautifully. i.e. the 2015 Act says ” there will be a referendum” period. Parliament did not qualify this is any way.

      Two judges at least seem to speak out and agree with him.

      Fascinating…

    32. Stoker says:

      Fergus Green at 11:35 am:

      Aye, Fergus, am mare Heed-case!
      🙂

    33. call me dave says:

      Lord Pannic QC under some pressure from the Judges questioning whether this Article 50 a matter for the law.

      The judges hinting that the referendum ‘in law’ has no legal affect even although the consequences of the referendum vote for people is enormous in social terms. (I think ?) :/

      Angels on a pin head stuff…Jeez!
      I’ll stick to the X-words which are tricky enough for me. 🙂

    34. call me dave says:

      @Mag merrilees

      I should also have added, like you did, that Lord Pannic did not panic and is doing very well indeed.

    35. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Fergus Green @ 11:34,

      Fergus, please get this right. You are following on from Dr.Jim, who has several times make the same slack error in various social media. It is NOT the Rowntree Foundation that funds the LibDems. That is a respectable charity doing good work that deserves our respect, not ill-founded calumny.

      The financial backer of the LibDems is the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd. (JRRT for short), which is NOT a charity and free to fund whoever it pleases. This we certainly can criticise when it supports liars like Carmichael.

      It’s important to get facts right, not least on a website dedicated to telling things straight.

    36. heedtracker says:

      Graun gives Kez two shots today with her extra extra devo plans. Severn Carrrell this time

      SNP are bad and we must stop them with something new and exciting,

      “It would be underpinned, she will tell the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank on Wednesday, by a new act of union designed for a post-Brexit era, to replace the treaty signed by England and Scotland that unified their parliaments 300 years ago.”

      Good luck with that.

    37. Proud Cybernat says:

      “Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd… supports liars like Carmichael.”

      Did they not also support the Orkney Four (by a smaller amount to Carmichael)?

    38. Ruby says:

      How often do police pull motorists over to ask if you are familiar with the road and to take care because the gritters were out?

      If you aren’t familiar with the road do you get a police escort?

    39. heedtracker says:

      Fergus Green says:
      7 December, 2016 at 11:34 am
      @Stoker 11.23

      Perhaps the Lib Dems can start a crowdfunder, or failing that, the Rowntree Foundation might help them out

      Its taken ages for the EC to finally get round to actually doing anything at all, LibDen election fraud wise.

      At this rate, the last blue tory electioneering expenses fraud allegations will be investigated in 2020, long after hard Brexit and heading for another term of planet toryboy UKOK reign, over Scotland especially.

      Unless future Baroness Kez Dugdale’s all new and exciting Act of Union does get written and Scotland takes back control of stuff, like road signs, or lollipop ladies, British lollipop ladies!

    40. heedtracker says:

      The toryboy filling in PMQ’s for May, currently hiding from Brexit Supreme Court trouble in Saudi Arabia, where they executed another fifteen people yesterday, is a jibbering fuckwit, shock. Are all toryboys madasfuck.com?

    41. Capella says:

      Dominic Chambers QC, representing the hairdresser, wiping the floor with the Govt advocates, who are sitting behind him with faces like fizz. English law, of course:
      https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

    42. Robert Peffers says:

      @Liz g says: 7 December, 2016 at 9:44 am:

      ” … The bit nobody down south seems to be getting is that…
      If what they say is true…there is no England.
      There is only Britain. … “

      Oh! They get it all right Liz g.

      The bit you, and the rest of the World doesn’t quite get, is that the southerons, (and indeed the World at large), have been even more thoroughly brainwashed than we Scots.

      To them the terms England, The United Kingdom, The British Empire, Britain, Great Britain, The British Isles and Blighty are all mutually transferrable and, to them, all those terms mean exactly the same thing.

      In fact they are mostly really completely taken aback when anyone questions it.

      For Example I was on a course at an MOD, (Admiralty), establishment in Gosport, (just a short ferry trip from Portsmouth Dockyard). The class were a mixed bunch of high ranking service personnel from the World’s naval forces with a sprinkling of other armed services and only two, including myself, industrial Civil Servants.

      At a break time the general conversation got onto TV shows that the foreign contingent saw on their TVs. As usual in such circumstances I was keeping myself quiet and listening, (and learning), before opening my mouth. The subject moved to, “Dad’s Army”, and a Gibraltarian piped up with, ““All you English insult we Gibraltarians with that theme song that Says, ‘Who do you think you are Kidding Mr Hitler, if you think old England’s done’. We Gibraltarians were in the war too, you know.

      He was joined by several other non-English people from many foreign airts and pairts. This was now my cue to make a point. I said, innocently, “Perhaps they just meant, ‘British’? I then stepped back waiting for the direction of the conversation to swerve off in another direction.

      It did – a Australian Naval Officer said, “That’s probably right, after all you are all English anyway”, and chaos began. Welsh N.Irish and several others insisting they were British but not English and all talking at once.

      “Yes but it’s all England isn’t it”, said a Canadian guy and I chipped in, (and out again), “Do you perhaps mean it’s all United Kingdom”? (More confusion and all talking at once).

      You can see where all this is going, can’t you?

      Then I decided it was time to get the cat out of my pocket and heave it among the pigeons. I said, fairly loudly over the general noise, “Of course you wouldn’t mean United Kingdom because there are only two United Kingdom partners in the Union”.

      At this point I went to the counter for another cup of Coffee and retired to a quite corner to watch the increasingly factionalised debate continue noisily.

    43. call me dave says:

      @Capella

      English Law of course…’Glorious Revolution and all that’
      Anyhoo! That makes a change from ‘1066 and all that’ 😐

      Aye he’s doing fine.

    44. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Proud Cybernat @ 12:00,

      Yes, to give them due credit, they did. A much smaller amount.

      Perhaps some conscience-salving, since the JRRT’s funding of Carmichael’s defence flew in the face of their own rules, and in any other context, it would have been small groups like the Orkney 4 who would likely have had the JRRT’s support, which has at times funded small groups defending rights against oppressive governments.

    45. Fergus Green says:

      @ Robert Sutherland 11.53.

      Point taken and apologies to all concerned.

    46. Breeks says:

      Just took a few minute to catch live Supreme Court web feed, and caught the very end of Pannic QC, before a new speaker continued, who’s name I did not catch, but proceeded to summarise the case against the Appellant’s appeal as breaking down into three basic categories.

      The first being the absolute sovereignty of Parliament, and he meant Westminster, without so much as a glance towards Scotland. All goes back to 17th Century battlefields of Crown versus Parliament…. Who knew??? I just switched off at that point. English History 1, Scottish History 0.

      I would put money on it, I think Theresa May’s appeal is going to fail, but the case for making it fail is only going to draw such critical precedents from history as it needs to draw for victory, and further precedents, such as the older doctrines of Scots Law, Scotland’s sovereignty and its subsequent misappropriation by Westminster is going to flounder as a division too far; something of no material relevance to the Supreme Courts conclusion. I believe the Scottish Government will secure consultation over Brexit, but on the auspices of their seats in Westminster’s sovereign parliament, and not because Scottish sovereignty warrants any special status or regard.

      Scotland is a sideshow; a rude interruption…. at least that’s the impression I’m getting. The Supreme Court, or more correctly Gina Millar’s lawyers can defeat Thereasa Mays appeal without metaphorically setting fire to the heather. Those who would set fire to the heather, (that’s you and me by the way), will be acknowledged, but quietly sidelined and politely sent on our way. “You’ll get your Brexit consultation you lucky, lucky Scotchlanders, now off you go and sup your porridge…”

    47. call me dave says:

      Where they specifically quote ‘English Law’ it must follow that there is a ‘Scottish Law’ so hope for us there later then…maybe.

      But I still think that Scotland will become a footnote in the final outcome in this argument which ever way it turns out.

      English law; UK Law; National Law; International Law and Domestic Law all in the same three sentences Jings !

    48. Proud Cybernat says:

      “That makes a change from ‘1066 and all that’”

      Jings!! Near heart failure there. Thought you’d written:

      That makes a change from 1966 and all that’

      But then – I’m sure the BBC will get 1966 in to this SC hearing SOMEHOW.

      Oh and they’ll also work in “SNP Bad”. Naturally.

    49. schrodingers cat says:

      on topic

      Peter A Bell says:
      5 December, 2016 at 12:24 pm
      “I hear the suggestion that the SNP should “commit to a second EU referendum in the event of Scotland becoming independent” and I immediately deploy that most basic and essential tool of political analysis, the question, “Why?”. Why would the SNP do that?”
      To appeal to yes leavers, that was the raison d’etre of stu’s article
      “They have no mandate for such a commitment.”
      the mandate would be the manifesto commitment for the next Holyrood election
      “ Not only has Scotland just voted on the matter of EU membership, returning a decisive majority for remaining in the EU, but the party has just won two elections on manifestos that explicitly stated a commitment to remaining in the EU. Why would the SNP turn its back on this commitment now? What message would this send to our friends in Europe? What would it say about the party’s respect for the will of the people?”
      No raison that EUREF2 need have an option to leave, a question about accepting the snps negotiated settlement with the EU and also a question on further integration, ie full membership, adopt the euro etc..
      “What the SNP cannot do, of course, is rule out a referendum on EU membership post-independence. It is absolutely implicit in the very concept of independence that it involves the power to freely negotiate the terms on which Scotland associates with other nations. Just as it is absolutely implicit in the concept of democracy that the people are the ultimate arbiters of those terms.”
      No one is suggesting that the snp is ruling out a referendum ???
      “But it is not for the SNP, or any other party, to impose a referendum on the people. The way it works is that people must first campaign to win support for the holding of a referendum. Only once a significant level of public demand has been convincingly established does it become necessary for the government to respond to that demand.”
      yup, a manifesto commitment in next holyrood election, if they win, they have a mandate. Whats the problem?
      ”The onus is on the Leavers to establish a persuasive case that another vote on EU membership is justified. It is not for the SNP, or any other party, to simply assume that the case has been made. Especially when there is such abundant solid evidence to the contrary in the form of recent polls.”
      No, the onus is on us to have a policy wrt to the EU during indyref2 which appeals to the greatest number of voters, thus ensuring that yes wins.
      ”That campaign for a referendum on Scotland’s membership of the EU can only sensibly take place in the context of an already independent Scotland where all decisions are ultimately a matter for the people of Scotland and where there can be no direct interference from the British state. We cannot have that campaign now, when it would necessarily involve British political parties which won’t even exist post-independence.”
      No one is suggesting that we hold euref2 before scotland is independent, but in the 2nd half of the next Holyrood parliament (2023/4)
      “Why would we allow parties that are avowedly committed to denying Scotland’s independence (and even our right of self-determination) be part of a process that is relevant only to an independent Scotland?”
      no one is suggesting that, stu is merely taking a position wrt the eu which will appeal to yes leavers, and encourage them to vote yes in indyref2
      “Rather than pandering to the foolishness of individuals making a vote for independence conditional on something that can only be decided after independence, we would be better occupied challenging such folly.”
      I wouldnt call the yes leavers foolish, I voted remain. Also, No won in 2014 by claiming amongst other things, that we would get booted out of the EU. Ie, folk voted No, because of they believed that once independent scotland would need to leave the eu.
      “Why would the SNP commit to a referendum on EU membership after independence?”
      To allow people to have their say on the negotiated settlement with the EU which would happen after a yes vote. It would also kick the eu issue into the long grass of the 2nd half of the next Holyrood Parliament. It would also leave the next Holyrood election to be a confirmation of the UK negotiations which would also take place post yes in indyref2. It separates the 2 issues

      “Why would the SNP allow itself to be herded by UKIP in the way that Cameron’s Tories were? Why would we allow the issue of EU membership to muddy the waters of the coming #indyref2 campaign when that matter has been decisively dealt with already?”
      No one is talking about pandering to ukippers, no point, they wont ever vote yes. This is to reach out to yes leavers. The issue of the EU will be part of indyref2, as it was in indyref1, regardless of whether we wish it or not.
      What has been decided is that 62% wish to remain in the same state as we are now. After indyref2, during the EU negotiations, Nicola will not be able to agree for scotland to be more integrated into the EU than it is now. She wont have a mandate to do this. Nor will it be possible to negotiate for scotland to retain its same status, the uk has many opt outs which during the negotiations the EU will not concede to an iScotland.
      People voted leave in the euref because they knew it meant taking back control of their borders, but they didnt know what trade deal with the eu they were voting for, they still dont. Without a clear outline of what staying in the eu after a yes in indyref2, EUIN means EUIN will be as vacuous as BREXIT means BREXIT. This is why the snp are considering the norway type solution. It is clear, known, already existing and unoquivical position within the eu. It only requires a yes or no from the electorate and also the eu negotiators.
      “The bottom line is that Yes/Leavers must make up their minds NOW whether they want decisions relating to such issues made in Scotland and by Scotland, or whether they want to join with British nationalists in handing that power to the Westminster elite – to do with as they please.”
      I not sure what your conclusion even means Peter, this is a discussion about the best position, regarding the eu, the snp can take to help win a yes ote in indyref2

      Peter A Bell says:
      5 December, 2016 at 12:50 pm
      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      5 December, 2016 at 12:33 pm
      “Why would the SNP do that?”
      To win.
      Pandering to UKIP didn’t prove to be much of a winning strategy for David Cameron. It isn’t looking like a winning strategy for Theresa May either. Why believe it would be different for the SNP?”
      because it isnt pandering to ukip, pointless exercise, it is to convince yessers who voted leave to vote yes in indyref2
      “The EU question has to be parked until after independence.”
      proposing a referendum in the 2nd half of the next holyrood parliament, 2023/24, after a yes vote in indyref2 and after the next Holyrood election is… um… parking the EU question until after independence.????
      “We should no more be making it a part of the #indyref2 campaign than we should be rolling the monarchy into the mix.”
      whether the eu or the monarchy is rolled into the mix will probably be done by the unionists regardless of what we want, ignoring these issues is not an option.
      Peter A Bell says:
      6 December, 2016 at 9:17 am
      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      5 December, 2016 at 12:58 pm
      “The EU question has to be parked until after independence. We should no more be making it a part of the #indyref2 campaign than we should be rolling the monarchy into the mix.”
      Um, that’s exactly what I just argued for.
      It may be what you think you argued for. But not really. If the SNP commits to a post-independence EU referendum the whole issue of EU membership immediately becomes inextricably bound up with issue of independence.”
      No, thats exactly what stu argued for. The issue of the eu during indyref2 will come up. No question about that Peter. It did in indyref1 and will do so again

      “Or do you imagine everybody is just going to ignore this commitment? Do you suppose British nationalist will simply look at that commitment, shrug their shoulders and conclude that there’s now no point in even mentioning the EU in the course of the campaign?”
      The commitment is to ensure everybody knows exactly what scotland’s position in the EU will be after a yes vote and after subsequent negotiations between an iscotland and the eu. ie. A norway deal. The brit nats can shrug all they want and they will raise the issue of the eu regardless and they are not the target demographics of this policy, the yes leavers are

    50. call me dave says:

      @Proud Cybernetic

      I did not say a footie.note in history 🙂

      Popcorn cancelled meantime. However I haven’t had to prop my eyelids up yet to keep awake… fascinating init!

    51. Robert Peffers says:

      @dramfineday says: 7 December, 2016 at 9:55 am:

      “Anent pupil performance stats. I was reading about it on Russia Today last night where, in the midst of this article talking about performance from all over the world, was a tweet from the BBC highlighting Scotland’s performance stats.”

      The whole bloody lot is codswallop anyway. I moment’s quite though should bring the realisation that the Scottish Educational system had undergone some basic changes under the SNP SG in recent years.

      A bit of simple logic indicates that such changes can only show results, good or bad, after the changes have been applied across the whole system and settled in. “The Curriculum for Excellence”, for example, and I quote:-

      “Curriculum for Excellence is designed to achieve a transformation in education in Scotland by providing a coherent, more flexible and enriched curriculum from 3 to 18.”

      From 3 to 18 is a period of 15 years before the 3 year olds in the new system leave the educational system or go on to higher Education. Not only that but the new system did not begin Scotland wide instantly but has been rolled out, (by local council Education Committees that are largely Labour controlled). I’m not even sure they have all now adopted the new system yet.

      Thus, whether the system is good, bad or indifferent will not register on the PISA Scale for some years yet and even the PISA table is only drawn up every few years anyway.

      In any case the usual suspects are rather premature, and propaganda led, as usual.

      We must always regard anything they say, even the most innocent seeming, with more than a pinch of suspicion and doubt.

    52. schrodingers cat says:

      same post as above but with paragraph spaces for clarity

      Peter A Bell says:
      5 December, 2016 at 12:24 pm
      “I hear the suggestion that the SNP should “commit to a second EU referendum in the event of Scotland becoming independent” and I immediately deploy that most basic and essential tool of political analysis, the question, “Why?”. Why would the SNP do that?”

      To appeal to yes leavers, that was the raison d’etre of stu’s article

      “They have no mandate for such a commitment.”

      the mandate would be the manifesto commitment for the next Holyrood election

      “ Not only has Scotland just voted on the matter of EU membership, returning a decisive majority for remaining in the EU, but the party has just won two elections on manifestos that explicitly stated a commitment to remaining in the EU. Why would the SNP turn its back on this commitment now? What message would this send to our friends in Europe? What would it say about the party’s respect for the will of the people?”

      No raison that EUREF2 need have an option to leave, a question about accepting the snps negotiated settlement with the EU and also a question on further integration, ie full membership, adopt the euro etc..

      “What the SNP cannot do, of course, is rule out a referendum on EU membership post-independence. It is absolutely implicit in the very concept of independence that it involves the power to freely negotiate the terms on which Scotland associates with other nations. Just as it is absolutely implicit in the concept of democracy that the people are the ultimate arbiters of those terms.”

      No one is suggesting that the snp is ruling out a referendum ???

      “But it is not for the SNP, or any other party, to impose a referendum on the people. The way it works is that people must first campaign to win support for the holding of a referendum. Only once a significant level of public demand has been convincingly established does it become necessary for the government to respond to that demand.”

      yup, a manifesto commitment in next holyrood election, if they win, they have a mandate. Whats the problem?

      ”The onus is on the Leavers to establish a persuasive case that another vote on EU membership is justified. It is not for the SNP, or any other party, to simply assume that the case has been made. Especially when there is such abundant solid evidence to the contrary in the form of recent polls.”

      No, the onus is on us to have a policy wrt to the EU during indyref2 which appeals to the greatest number of voters, thus ensuring that yes wins.

      ”That campaign for a referendum on Scotland’s membership of the EU can only sensibly take place in the context of an already independent Scotland where all decisions are ultimately a matter for the people of Scotland and where there can be no direct interference from the British state. We cannot have that campaign now, when it would necessarily involve British political parties which won’t even exist post-independence.”

      No one is suggesting that we hold euref2 before scotland is independent, but in the 2nd half of the next Holyrood parliament (2023/4)

      “Why would we allow parties that are avowedly committed to denying Scotland’s independence (and even our right of self-determination) be part of a process that is relevant only to an independent Scotland?”

      no one is suggesting that, stu is merely taking a position wrt the eu which will appeal to yes leavers, and encourage them to vote yes in indyref2

      “Rather than pandering to the foolishness of individuals making a vote for independence conditional on something that can only be decided after independence, we would be better occupied challenging such folly.”

      I wouldnt call the yes leavers foolish, I voted remain. Also, No won in 2014 by claiming amongst other things, that we would get booted out of the EU. Ie, folk voted No, because of they believed that once independent scotland would need to leave the eu.

      “Why would the SNP commit to a referendum on EU membership after independence?”

      To allow people to have their say on the negotiated settlement with the EU which would happen after a yes vote. It would also kick the eu issue into the long grass of the 2nd half of the next Holyrood Parliament. It would also leave the next Holyrood election to be a confirmation of the UK negotiations which would also take place post yes in indyref2. It separates the 2 issues

      “Why would the SNP allow itself to be herded by UKIP in the way that Cameron’s Tories were? Why would we allow the issue of EU membership to muddy the waters of the coming #indyref2 campaign when that matter has been decisively dealt with already?”

      No one is talking about pandering to ukippers, no point, they wont ever vote yes. This is to reach out to yes leavers. The issue of the EU will be part of indyref2, as it was in indyref1, regardless of whether we wish it or not.
      What has been decided is that 62% wish to remain in the same state as we are now. After indyref2, during the EU negotiations, Nicola will not be able to agree for scotland to be more integrated into the EU than it is now. She wont have a mandate to do this. Nor will it be possible to negotiate for scotland to retain its same status, the uk has many opt outs which during the negotiations the EU will not concede to an iScotland.
      People voted leave in the euref because they knew it meant taking back control of their borders, but they didnt know what trade deal with the eu they were voting for, they still dont. Without a clear outline of what staying in the eu after a yes in indyref2, EUIN means EUIN will be as vacuous as BREXIT means BREXIT. This is why the snp are considering the norway type solution. It is clear, known, already existing and unoquivical position within the eu. It only requires a yes or no from the electorate and also the eu negotiators.

      “The bottom line is that Yes/Leavers must make up their minds NOW whether they want decisions relating to such issues made in Scotland and by Scotland, or whether they want to join with British nationalists in handing that power to the Westminster elite – to do with as they please.”

      I not sure what your conclusion even means Peter, this is a discussion about the best position, regarding the eu, the snp can take to help win a yes vote in indyref2

      Peter A Bell says:
      5 December, 2016 at 12:50 pm
      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      5 December, 2016 at 12:33 pm
      “Why would the SNP do that?”
      To win.
      Pandering to UKIP didn’t prove to be much of a winning strategy for David Cameron. It isn’t looking like a winning strategy for Theresa May either. Why believe it would be different for the SNP?”

      because it isnt pandering to ukip, pointless exercise, it is to convince yessers who voted leave to vote yes in indyref2

      “The EU question has to be parked until after independence.”

      proposing a referendum in the 2nd half of the next holyrood parliament, 2023/24, after a yes vote in indyref2 and after the next Holyrood election is… um… parking the EU question until after independence.????

      “We should no more be making it a part of the #indyref2 campaign than we should be rolling the monarchy into the mix.”

      whether the eu or the monarchy is rolled into the mix will probably be done by the unionists regardless of what we want, ignoring these issues is not an option.

      Peter A Bell says:
      6 December, 2016 at 9:17 am
      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      5 December, 2016 at 12:58 pm
      “The EU question has to be parked until after independence. We should no more be making it a part of the #indyref2 campaign than we should be rolling the monarchy into the mix.”

      WOS Um, that’s exactly what I just argued for.

      It may be what you think you argued for. But not really. If the SNP commits to a post-independence EU referendum the whole issue of EU membership immediately becomes inextricably bound up with issue of independence.”

      No, thats exactly what stu argued for. The issue of the eu during indyref2 will come up. No question about that Peter. It did in indyref1 and will do so again

      “Or do you imagine everybody is just going to ignore this commitment? Do you suppose British nationalist will simply look at that commitment, shrug their shoulders and conclude that there’s now no point in even mentioning the EU in the course of the campaign?”

      The commitment is to ensure everybody knows exactly what scotland’s position in the EU will be after a yes vote and after subsequent negotiations between an iscotland and the eu. eg. A norway type deal. The brit nats can shrug all they want and they will raise the issue of the eu regardless and they are not the target demographics of this policy, the yes leavers are

    53. orri says:

      I think the trip up will be that the original case was dealt within an English Court and under English Law. As this has now been elevated to the Supreme Court they need first to deal with the argument under that. However unless the Government pulls the emergency break smashes the window and runs of into the sunset at that point or the judges end the case they will need to consider the other legal systems within their remit.

    54. Jack Murphy says:

      That Gang of Labour must be getting desperate suggesting a new Treaty of Union !!

      I thought their Gordon Brown had told Scotland two years ago that we were getting “Near Federalism,as it was possible” and their inhouse magazine the Daily Record splashed it on it’s Front Page as ‘The Vow’.

      Labour is an opportunistic Blairite/Brownite bunch of Chancers.
      Out with them.

    55. Dr Jim says:

      @Robert J Sutherland

      I don’t use social media neither Twitter or Facebook and by changing a bank account number and designation the Joseph Rowntree foundation is still the Joseph Rowntree foundation no matter what it calls itself when it sends out it’s donations even by different routes unless by some miracle there are two Joseph Rowntree charitable organisations in the world in which case, Endless apologies

    56. Tam Jardine says:

      Robert peffers

      I agree we need to give cfe a chance to bed in- let’s not get tied to it though. Many in the teaching profession are dead against it and there is a fundamental contradiction at its heart between learning to learn and the desire to assess pupils through regular exams. Cfe doesn’t really do cramming.

      Subjects like foreign languages which involve raw learning get are not well served and have been somewhat sidelined over the years.

      The last thing education needs right now is further change and we have to see how it all beds in but I would caution that it is a very difficult area to address.

      If you want to criticise or praise Scottish education there are a raft of stats to do both but whatever the approach is the underlying economic and led social issues are the key to bridging the attainment gap IMHO

    57. Vestas says:

      The govt has lost this by a country mile.

      I find it quite amusing really – if they win the appeal then the govt have the right to abolish primary legislation by prerogative, which leads with an elegant inevitability to dictatorship.

      Some may say we’re not far off that now but winning the appeal would guarantee it.

      Oh & it’d be a monumental “Fuck you, you’re no longer required” to the Westminster parliament.

      Fun times, watching them tear themselves to bits.

    58. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Why not just one ref. Options leaveUk/ leave eu, leaveuk/ stay eu, stay uk/ stay eu and stay uk/ leave eu.”

      Because you end up with a winning option backed by just 30% of the electorate.

    59. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      schrodingers cat @ 12:49:

      After indyref2, during the EU negotiations, Nicola will not be able to agree for Scotland to be more integrated into the EU than it is now. She wont have a mandate to do this.

      I don’t know why you’re raising this point again. It’s a red herring. It’s just not the case, as I’ve responded already.

      Formally linking an EUref2 with indyref2, however, definitely creates critical issues that can be exploited by the Unionists. Why on earth give them that chance?

      No-one is suggesting that a future SG should be denied the possibility of a future EUref, or indeed a referendum on any other concern that sufficient people express at the time. But there is no immediate appetite for another EUref now. The result of the last one was plain as a pikestaff in Scotland. Many people are sick of having to turn out for these things, so there is the real potential for voter backlash.

      First things first.

      (Could I appeal once again to you to distinguish other people’s quotes from your own responses? This latest posting was a huge wodge of text that I at least found indigestible, while also admittedly being diverted by listening to the arguments in the SC…)

    60. Capella says:

      Court has adjourned for lunch.
      Very impressed with Dominic Chambers QC representing Dos Santos, who is a hairdresser I believe.
      The three government legals were sitting directly behind him looking very glum. L to R, James Eadie QC, who presented the Government case, Lord Keen QC (Advocate General for Scotland) who asserted that Scotland is irrelevant, and Jeremy Wright QC (Attorney General HM Govt) who is the “appellant”.

      The discussion centred on English law and the Royal Prerogative v Parliamentary Sovereignty. A high bar for the Govt to get over.

      James Wolff QC, Lord Advocate for Scotland is on at 3.15. He was sitting behind Lord Pannick, also impressive in his ability to remember which page he is on and why.
      JW scribbling busily while listening.

      Must get on with something else now!

    61. Breeks says:

      call me dave says:
      7 December, 2016 at 12:50 pm

      “I.… fascinating init!”

      Nope. It’s a battle between UK Brexiteers and UK non-Brexiteers.

      It does not advance Scotland’s case for Independence in any way. The relevance for Scotland, if there is any, will be a footnote on page 187 of Appendix 3 of sub-section 18.

      I struggle to fathom why people are expecting a U.K. Supreme Court to somehow recognise a Scottish claim on sovereignty which would not only render the Supreme Court itself errantly dysfunctional, but the whole UK itself, over which the Supreme Court is meant to be Supreme.

      The fascinating court case I want to see is the assertion of Scotland’s historic sovereignty in Scotland’s Court of Session, and its “required” acquiescence to English sovereignty and parliamentary practice first properly explained to all before being cast asunder, and international recognition sought Scotland’s rightful and legitimate, genuine sovereignty dating back 700 years.

      This Supreme Court is only trawling far enough back in history to confound a modern appeal case which can be determined on 17th Century principles. What Scotland requires is the Court of Session, the highest Court in Scotland, to hear a case which must be determined on 14th Century precedents and principles, and reconcile how Scotland’s inalienable sovereignty is left subjugated in an alien Parliament.

      That’s the case that I’ll be fascinated to see.

    62. Liz g says:

      Capella @ 1.14
      How are you able to get on with anything????
      Please share your secret.
      I can’t focus….LOL!!

    63. schrodingers cat says:

      Robert J. Sutherland

      I did repost it with extra paragraph spaces for clarity, along with the original “”‘s

      Im sorry that this post is distracting you from listening to the SC, which is now ended for lunch, but my post is on topic.

      your post
      After indyref2, during the EU negotiations, Nicola will not be able to agree for Scotland to be more integrated into the EU than it is now. She wont have a mandate to do this.

      I don’t know why you’re raising this point again. It’s a red herring. It’s just not the case, as I’ve responded already.

      I beg to differ,

      STU
      If it is agreed that after a yes in indyref2, The 62% remain result in the euref does NOT give the SG a mandate to negotiate a position for scotland which is further integrated in the EU, nor does it mandate the to negotiate a different position, and since the status quo is unlikey to be on offer, It strikes me that the only mandate, or option, they do have is to remain in the EU albeit to a lesser degree.

      if this is the case, in euref2, do the options “to leave” or indeed “reject” the negotiated settlement (eg a norway deal) even need to be on the ballot paper? surely the 62% eu vote has already decided these points.

      In such a senario, could the euref2 after the next HE not just contain options for greater or futher integration into the EU?

    64. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      UKGov’s case in the SC well-holed below the waterline already, before the Scottish case is even put before the court. Still, it will be interesting to hear what the Lord Advocate says. Hopefully he will strongly refute the proposition that the Sewell aspects of The Scotland Act 2016 are merely “exhortatory”, as one of the judges seemed to suggest.

      However I have the gut feeling that Teresa May, with the usual lame acquiescence of Jeremy Corbyn, intends now to short-circuit any judgement of the court, whether Scotland is given any recognition in it or not, by passing some very basic Art.50 Act in WM well before the judgement is announced.

    65. Liz g says:

      Breeks @ 1.29
      Nobody expects (I hope ) any kind of definitive answer on our Soverenty.
      It’s fascinating because Soverenty of any kind rarely gets before a court.
      Also because it may be….. just may be…a bit of a step for ours.
      Even so watching them try to not mention it…is all good fun,lets face it…not a lot else happening!!

    66. Capella says:

      @ Liz g – In the lunch break! Dominic Chambers is back on from 2.00 – 2.30, then a wee coffee break till James Wolff at 3.15. I’m fascinated by it and looking forward to hearing what our advocate has to say.

      I hope Robert Peffers has a chance to catch it. Right up his street I would have guessed.

    67. Robert Peffers says:

      @Breeks says: 7 December, 2016 at 12:37 pm:
      ” … The Supreme Court, or more correctly Gina Millar’s lawyers can defeat Thereasa Mays appeal without metaphorically setting fire to the heather.”

      That is, though, how Westminster became the English Parliament that split a legally equal bipartite United Kingdom up as four unequal countries and became the parliament of the country of England masquerading as the United Kingdom parliament. They just ignored the law, said we make the rules, and took over.

      ” … Those who would set fire to the heather, (that’s you and me by the way), will be acknowledged, but quietly sidelined and politely sent on our way. “You’ll get your Brexit consultation you lucky, lucky Scotchlanders, now off you go and sup your porridge…””

      And that, Breeks, is the way that all far right powers historically got their due come-uppance. In short – the peasants, the majority, revolt and take back control.

      It usually means death and destruction with the peasants getting slaughtered but winning in the end because there are more of the peasants who have reached the stage when their lives are not worth living anyway and are ready to die for the cause.

      However, to date, the Scottish independence movement against Westminster oppression has been, (comparatively), bloodless. We Scots are well known innovators and may yet be historically the first to win freedom without bloodletting.

      Mind you there is still great temptation to take a good old fashioned bladed swipe at the odd, (sometimes very odd), oppressor.

    68. Chic McGregor says:

      Since SC seems to have brought the thread back on topic:

      In response to Peter’s ” If the SNP commits to a post-independence EU referendum the whole issue of EU membership immediately becomes inextricably bound up with issue of independence.”

      I would say, Peter, with an indyref2 in response to and justified by the advent of Brexit, EU membership is already inextricably linked to indyref2.

      There are just as many Yes/Leavers who currently intend to vote No for an indyref2, i.e. those who want to leave the EU more than they want an independent Scotland, as there would have been if the question was “Do you want Scotland to be independent but in the EU?”

      Any crosslink effect is already in effect. That horse has bolted.

      Some of those will of course, hopefully, come round to a Yes voting intention if and when the effects of Brexit become more palpable but those converts would not be affected by the promise of a second EUref.

      A second Scottish EU ref actually helps disentangle the EU from the situation which already exists.

      Some of the Yes/Leave and currently No folk, may be satisfied enough with a second say to switch to Yes and the more intelligent of them will even acknowledge that it would make sense to see what the new Scotland-EU deal does first.

      OTOH those No/Remainers and currently Yes folk, i.e. those who want to Remain in the EU more than they want to Remain in the UK, will still vote Yes because that would be the continuing position still and probably after the EUref, versus definitely being out of the EU if Scotland stays in the UK.

    69. ronnie anderson says:

      Kezia’s Christmas wish list .
      If its Black its no White
      If its Left its no Right
      The Moral here is dont let a Idiot like Kezia lead the fight.

    70. ronnie anderson says:

      http://archive.is/fKBCr It would be helpful if I posted this in relation to my last post

    71. Chic McGregor says:

      PS sorry if that last one came over a bit “vessel with the pestle” but that is the way it is.

    72. schrodingers cat says:

      Chic McGregor says:

      Since SC seems to have brought the thread back on topic:

      I hope i dont get into anymore trouble for doing so and i also hope you meant schrodingers cat and not supreme court

      ” the more intelligent of them will even acknowledge that it would make sense to see what the new Scotland-EU deal does first.”

      thats why I like salmond and Nicola’s idea of a norway style settlement, even if just as a “holding pen” until euref2.
      there is little ambiguity as to what this type of settlement actually means, it’s clear and unequivocal.

      It avoids the problem that we see at the moment wrt brexiters voting leave without actually knowing what trade agreement they would get from the EU, they still dont know, It is the waiting and seeing that is the source of the problem regarding brexit at the moment.

      Stating an exact position for scotland in the EU after a yes in indyref2, removes this vagueness. also, it is unlikely that during indyref2 we will get much clarification from the EU regarding post indyref2 eu negotiations with an indy scotland before it is indy. But I think we would get at least a yes reply regarding an already existing and known status. that is all that would be needed

    73. Chic McGregor says:

      Schrodingers cat

      I see where you are coming from there.

      It is simply a question of seeing things from each group’s logic bubble.

      OT BTW I take it you noticed that if every Green voter in the regions had switched to voting SNP, then the result would have been:

      SNP 64 Greens 0 – nae indy majority

      Rather than the:

      SNP 63 Greens 6 actual result – indy majority
      ?

      Oops! Guid job they didna a’ leestin.

    74. Robert Peffers says:

      @Jack Murphy says: 7 December, 2016 at 1:01 pm:

      “That Gang of Labour must be getting desperate suggesting a new Treaty of Union !!”

      Whit div ye mean, “Getting”, desperate, Jack?

      Labour hae been fell desperate fir aa muckle wheen o years noo.

      “I thought their Gordon Brown had told Scotland two years ago that we were getting “Near Federalism,as it was possible” and their inhouse magazine the Daily Record splashed it on it’s Front Page as ‘The Vow’.”

      Aye! and yon wiz Labour being afu desperate back yonder tae.

      “Labour is an opportunistic Blairite/Brownite bunch of Chancers.
      Out with them.”

      Why dae ye no tell us aa whit ye really think, Jack?
      ;-))

      Seriously: Kez the Dug is spouting the biggest load of utterly crazed poppycock and attempting the biggest load of, “Scotland BAAD”, idiocy since the King of England had The Bruce, (and thus all Scots and Scotland), excommunicated by the Pope.

      First of all the Treaty of Union has only two signatories on the document and they are both Kingdoms. Yet Westminster first of all installed the New United Kingdom’s united Parliament in the old palace of Westminster and carried on to make it just the, three country, Kingdom of England’s parliament with the added country of England’s newly, illegally, annexed country of Scotland added to the mix.

      That is Westminster continued as the Parliament of England and treated Scotland as an acquisition and that has been stated many, many times since 1707. Latterly most significantly by Mundell who claimed, on UK wide TV:-

      “The Treaty of Union extinguish the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom”.

      Trouble is the Treaty of Union did no such thing – Westminster did that illegally and have claimed ever since, “We make the rules Jocks, so live with it”.

      However, they have continued to further illegally flout what the Treaty of Union legally did state and, by Devolving the Powers of what is factually operating as the Country of England’s parliament, is devolving the country of England’s assumed powers not only to the actual only full legal equal partner Kingdom of Scotland but to the two other countries that are only legally parts of the Kingdom of England but are not otherwise parts of the actual legal United Kingdom except as two integral country parts of the kingdom of England.

      Now Kez would have Scots accept that not only is Scotland just another part of the Kingdom of England that masquerades as the United Kingdom but Scots should now accept they are less than even just another English acquisition but are only just equal to a region of the country of England that they tell us was renamed, “The United Kingdom”, by the Treaty of Union.

      She really does think that not only do all we Scots zip up the back but we do so while sailing up the Clyde on a Banana Boat and Singing God Save The Queen of England.

      Sheesh!
      Onybuddie got a couple o Asprins? Ma auld heid’s fair nippin noo.

    75. Smallaxe says:

      Robert Peffers:

      Thank you,for being kind enough in taking the time to clarify the “Orders in Council”,it came as some surprise to me that the British Monarchy could
      overrule a High Court judgment so easily and to callously prevent the people of Diego Garcia Island,who are British Citizens, from returning to their homeland.

      I agree with louis b argyll at 11:32am,that we should have a crowd funder to assist with your technical difficulties as you are an indispensable asset to WOS.

      Thank you once again, my apologies sir, for the lateness of my post to your good self.

      Peace Always

    76. Robert Peffers says:

      @Tam Jardine says: 7 December, 2016 at 1:02 pm:

      “I agree we need to give cfe a chance to bed in- let’s not get tied to it though. Many in the teaching profession are dead against it and there is a fundamental contradiction at its heart between learning to learn and the desire to assess pupils through regular exams. Cfe doesn’t really do cramming.”

      I wouldn’t argue with most of what you say, Tam. However, the teaching profession has always had within it great differences of opinions as to what is, and what is not, good education. It probably always will.

      The point is, like all new systems, there needs be a settling in period followed by changes to accommodate those faults found during the settling down process. If you like – a tinkering round the edges to correct any errors found while settling down.

      In any case I would claim the basic problem that the system suffers from is that the beginning of the process of change is with the training of future teachers and thus with their own education but that harks back to why the system was failing in the first place:-

      WESTMINSTER FUNDING CUTS.

    77. schrodingers cat says:

      Chic McGregor

      Schrodingers cat

      I see where you are coming from there.

      It is simply a question of seeing things from each group’s logic bubble.

      yup, a norway status would suit no and leave voting fishermen. very pro EUists would like to have a chance for much greater eu intergration offered by a euref2

      how would slab and libdems view this euref2 option?

      as for list votes, yup, had every green and snp supporter voted snp in fife and mid, a unionist would have won the 8th list seat, they didnt, enough folk voted green.

    78. schrodingers cat says:

      interesting thread and subject folks

    79. Rock says:

      Ken500,

      “Many Lawyers are master criminals. Most of them should be in jail”

      The vast majority of judges should be in jail.

      They are the enemies of the “plebs”.

      Why are those who jailed Megrahi not in jail?

      Because of them Scotland is a colony of England after more than 310 years.

      How many times has the Treaty of Union been broken?

      Why hasn’t the Scottish justice system declared it null and void?

    80. Donald says:

      You make a good argument but I believe there is a fatal flaw.

      Alex Salmond made a very good point at the time of the EU referendum. He argued that as a matter of both principle and political strategy, no political party should ever propose or support a referendum while opposing the proposition of the referendum. It would be as much folly for the SNP to stage a referendum on leaving the EU as it was for Cameron. Neither agreed with leaving the EU. If you don’t believe in leaving the EU then it is not your job as a party to offer a referendum on that basis. It is the job of parties who support leaving the EU to offer a referendum on that prospectus.

      That doesn’t mean people can’t have their say. The same hurdle to having a Scottish EU referendum should apply as to any independence referendum. In other words the SNP should point out that the future of Scotland in the EU is entirely in the hands of the people of Scotland. If people want to leave the EU they first need to vote for parties that want to hold a referendum to leave the EU. If such parties get enough seats in parliament then there will be a referendum.

      This seems like a perfectly fair proposition. And it leaves open the possibility that Scotland can leave the EU in the future if there is enough support for the idea.

    81. Donald, it may certainly be a matter of political strategy if not actual party political expediency, but it cannot reasonably be described as being a matter of priniciple.

      As someone who is strongly in favour of EU membership myself, I think if I were a professional politician in the SNP I might well be tempted to also think “Why should we propose an EU referendum which could result in a change we do not want?” and act accordingly, but I would not be so deluded I hope, as to imagine that that was a principled stance.

      On the contrary, allowing a referendum which may not give the result you want is something which would far better qualify for the epithet principled.

      And while we are on the subject of principle, surely one of the greatest principles behind the cause of independence for Scotland is the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign.

      Particularly in the circumstance where a new sovereignty sharing deal with the EU has been struck, an opportunity for the people of Scotland to pass judgement on that after a sensible evaluation period would be the moral thing to do.

      I certainly do not think the SNP leadership are entitled to assume the high moral ground on this issue.

    82. Andrew McLean says:

      Donald.

      And that is that. well put sir, I would not waste another second on this, the SNP will not propose a referendum on the EU, certainly not within the first 5 years of independence, to do so before that or at the same time or shortly after is suicide.
      Not one of our very informed posters have given a convincing argument to change that belief.



    Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top