Wot it says on the tin. Not much to change. SNP will keep on asking for it and they’ll keep on winning in Scotland. https://news.sky.com/story/indyref2...insters-approval-supreme-court-rules-12753590
I think legally there was little doubt that this is the correct outcome. But morally it's difficult to argue that the UK is a partnership of equals when the balance of power is clearly with the English. I know that if I were Scottish I'd be pretty tired of being governed by this Tory shambles of a government and being out of the EU when my country men and women voted for neither.
Sure. But I'd say in this instance the balance of power is with 'the UK' rather than the English. The principles of self-determination are always developing but it's not clear they extend to allowing a group to secede from a country, especially where it would cause harm to the whole and against the will of the whole. The will of the UK is vested in Parliament and given it doesn't consent to the referendum I'd argue it's not even that morally tricky to say there shouldn't be one. I think we have to be pretty sceptical of Sturgeon's motivations too. This legal case smells like a Boris-like dead cat to me, so the main aim is to work out what's she trying to distract from...
That rings true - especially with her dig claiming that it's only an 'advisory' referendum... Any way, another nail in the Tory coffin.
It’s surely a different principle if you are a nation wishing to secede rather than a region. It means that Scotland’s nationhood is essentially a token if it cannot ask the question. The SNP asked the question repeatedly today at PMQs what the route to a referendum would be. They received the usual Tory platitudes, despite the Tories being as popular there as anthrax. Ok, they are not that popular. The Brexit referendum, which also affected all nations, was carried out because the Tories put it in a manifesto. It seems reasonable that the SNP should also be able to do that. If the Scots don’t like it, they can vote against it again, either in their Parliamentary election or in a referendum. And bringing the case was a slam dunk, because in losing they still get everyone talking about Indyref 2 and confirm that Scotland is not the author of its own destiny. A few more votes for independence won.
This is where legal purism meets political reality - in the legal sense, the Brexit referendum was carried out because the UK Parliament passed a law to say it should, not because a political party put it in its manifesto. The Scottish Parliament and Nicola Sturgeon's own office of First Minister only exist because the UK Parliament passed a law to make it so. Ultimately Scotland willingly signed up to the Union in 1707 "forever after". I don't suppose they thought to ask for a secession clause in the event their great, great, great (etc) grandchildren took a different view. I'm not personally convinced it's that much of a vote-winner anyway but a bulwark against the SNP's vote share slipping possibly. They want the wavering believers to stay on board and vote SNP for another round of Scottish Parliament and Westminster elections, as if the SNP is shown to be impotent on its main policy aim why vote for them over the others?
‘Scotland willingly signed up to the Union in 1707’. Hmmn. That’s not a strong argument for anything very much in relation to people living now. The UK Parliament has already decided once that Scotland can be allowed to decide its future. There is absolutely no reason why that shouldn’t happen again. It’s purely politics whether or not that gets put once more to Parliament. And as yet, there is little sign the SNP believers are wavering.
To be fair, they were presented with the apparent choice between accepting the Union & the Hannoverian Succession or effective bankruptcy via the terms of the 1705 Aliens Act. And there was obviously longstanding opposition to the Union as many felt, in the words of an 18th century folk song, 'we were bought and sold for English gold, what a parcel of rogues in a nation.'
Re: 1707 it's the 'forever after' bit in the Act passed by the then-sovereign Scottish Parliament which is key. As for the bit in bold, there's the minor issue of one of the clear political conditions of the 2014 referendum being that both sides would respect the result and consider the question settled for at least a generation. I don't find the idea Brexit somehow voided that super persuasive, nor do I see any suggestion in polling that the pro-independence side is even in the majority in Scotland, let alone an overwhelming one. So what's the reason why it should happen again? Well yes, willingly was probably overstating it a bit! But it was hardly a war of conquest. It was ultimately a political choice taken by the landed powers that be... really not much different to today.
Those political conditions are simply not binding. Lots of intentions were flung around at the time. I think the biggest principle in the SNP’s favour is that within the British electoral systems the winner has a mandate and governs by it. That has never required 50%. There’s nothing to say that mandate shouldn’t be to push for constitutional reform, even if it’s clear that only Westminster can grant it.
They're not binding but they're reasons nonetheless. And the SNP, empowered by the majority they hold their subordinate legislature, can push for whatever they want. But as you say only Westminster can grant it so at best they're deadlocked.
It baffles me why people dislike her so much. She seems far more competent than any recent U.K. Prime Minister. Admittedly I say this as an outsider.
Well Scotland's labour party view her (and the SNP) as little more than stealing their policies and answering any criticism about any of those policies with "When we're independent...". There's also grave misgivings about the SNP's policy of finding 'free' higher education at university by filleting the funding of early years/primary education which has had a severe effect on Scots educational attainment (I mean, who knew that teaching kids how to learn at a early age was so important?).
It’s a no brainer. Compare her to the last few we’ve had she’s a towering stateswoman and intellectual genius.
They should do it anyway, not many English places left that want to be ruled over by Westminster so I can only imagine the sentiment over the borders.
The MSM attacks anyone threatening the elite and the uneducated fall for it over and over again, rinse and repeat. Most of the gas and oil is over the border, who owns the drilling companies and what do they stand to lose?
I don't agree with referendums in a representative system. We elect people to make decisions for us, because we have busy lives and don't know enough about the consequences of really difficult, irreversible yes/no decisions. Especially those which can easily be swayed by nefarious forces/ turnout on the day. If we do have a referendum, given the complex and almost irreversible nature of the beast, it should be a once in a generation issue that has not been tackled or settled, over a very long time, as you need to see the long term outcome of the decision. It certainly shouldn't be a rinse and repeat tool to keep going until they get the answer they want, nor to exploit a certain discontent with the current government at that time. I also then think a supermajority should be required. If we have to have referendums, then I'm generally troubled by the principle of multiple referenda. If we have another referendum, we are subscribing to the view that the result of a referendum does not settle a debate, and will just be one of a series. How on earth does that help us make any progress? What does that do to turnout? We've wasted the last decade fighting pointless debates and turning on ourselves. We're trying to tackle the issues caused by an aging population, climate change, the war in Ukraine, the damage caused by Brexit and the worldwide pandemic. Why take precious parliamentary attention re-fighting yesterday's battles? The SNP aren't a single issue party, nor do they get 50% of the vote in Scotland, nor has there ever been a persistent clamour for independence in polls, nor any majority whatsoever that exceeds sufficient margins of error. All of which I think you'd need to even make a case for this wasting more of parliament's time. This was a pretty obvious result and the SNP knew it. The only reason this went to court is that it helps the SNP in the next election, and they know they are going to have a much harder time in the opinion polls under the next Labour government.
No, just reading between the lines, seeing why agendas are pushed, who is pushing them, their connections etc.
