So our old friend "TSE", Deputy Editor of Stormfront Lite and the man who famously once made up a story about a family tragedy to avoid settling a private bet, thinks he's had another wizard idea.
"Perhaps this explains why Yes did so well in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum. In any future Independence referendum the Unionists should ensure the question on the ballot paper is ‘Should Scotland remain a member of the United Kingdom?’ Yes or No."
It's no secret that some unionists are angling for something like that to happen, and Stephen Daisley has already gone into propagandist mode by taking it as read that their scheme will succeed - in his articles he casually refers to the No side in any future indyref as "the Remain side". But to some extent they're whistling in the wind. Whatever doubts there may be about the impartiality of the Electoral Commission (and for the first time I'm starting to share those doubts), the chances that a question based on a false premise will be endorsed are vanishingly small, and TSE's preferred question is undoubtedly based on a false premise.
Scotland is not a "member" of the United Kingdom. That is not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of fact. The UK is not an organisation with members in the way that the European Union is. Notwithstanding devolution, the UK is a unitary state and the territory of Scotland is simply a part of it. You cannot rescind membership that does not exist.
OK, you might say, surely TSE's question would work with a slight modification? How about...
"Should Scotland remain part of the United Kingdom? Yes or No."
Nope, that doesn't work either, because it doesn't tell you anything about what will happen if and when Scotland ceases to be part of the United Kingdom. Does it become part of another existing state? Does it become a Crown Dependency outside the UK like Guernsey? Does it become a freely associated state like the Cook Islands? Or does it become an independent country? It's not clear from the question, and the one thing the Electoral Commission are bound to insist on is clarity. Frustrating as it may be for the Daisleys of this world, a referendum question about independence will self-evidently have to actually mention the word 'independence' or 'independent'.
Which takes us back to the 2014 question - "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Short, succinct, crystal-clear and understood by all. The Electoral Commission suggested it for a very good reason, and they're going to need to dream up a very good excuse if they intend to muck about it with it.
There's also the issue of the monarchy which would confusingly get embroiled in a "leave/remain the UK" question. Last time and likely next time, the Yes side said they would keep the monarchy. Some people may wrongly get confused by "leave the UK" thinking it means to ditch the monarchy.
ReplyDeleteAldo_macb
I'm sure the original prefix "Do you agree that ..." was intentionally sacrificial so that the clear wording offered by the Electoral Commission as an alternative was easily adopted. It's an old track oft use in negotiations: Ask for more than you'd accept and get exactly what you want.
ReplyDeleteScotland is one of two Kingdoms only that constitutes the United Kingdom, as per the 1707 Treaty. In other words we will not be leaving the UK as a ''member'' when we say bye-bye. We'll be dissolving the Union in that it will no longer exist.
ReplyDeleteAnd you have to laugh at TSE's comment: ''"Perhaps this explains why Yes did so well in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum.'' As far as I can remember we lost and they won.
You're right James. What was good enough for the EC in 2014 (Should Scotland be an independent country?) will be good enough for them in 2020. That should also cut 3 months off of their proposed 8 months ... ''drag it all oot to scupper their plans.''
''In a submission to the Scottish parliament’s finance and constitution committee, published last week, the Electoral Commission insisted it should be given 12 weeks to assess the wording of the question to be put in the referendum.'' Ha ha ha. Right!
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/19/scottish-independence-referendum-plan-2020-thrown-into-doubt-electoral-commission
Anonymous, you have this right regarding the UNITED KINGDOM - Jamie the Saxt became King of England as well as continuing as King of Scots in 1603 and created the United Kingdom in his person. Over the following century pressure grew for political union, but it was by no means unanimous -indeed,probably, not a majority in either country - in both Scotland and England, but bribery and corruption brought the 1707 political union about.
DeleteJamie also 'invented' a third kingdom, that of Ireland. Ireland was incorporated into the political union in 1801, following the unsuccessful uprising by the United Irishmen. It is this 1801 union that is the basis of the 'unionist' concept in the title of the Conservative Party, but few of the members outside of the Northern Irish unionist parties actually know this. However, this union fell apart in 1922 when the Irish Free State and 'Northern' Ireland (often referred to erroneously as 'Ulster') were established and the link was broken formally with the establishment of the Irish Republic in 1949.
I don't think is quite right. James VI certainly wanted to create a joint kingdom after 1603 but he was effectively thwarted by the English House of Commons who wanted to minimise Scottish influence. So up to 1707 Scotland and England remained separate kingdoms which happened to share the same monarch (not an uncommon situation in those days when dynasties like the Bourbons, Habsburgs and Stewarts competed to make politically favourable marriages).
DeleteAccording to Wikipedia the (puppet) kingdom of Ireland was created in 1542.
The EC will know that if they change the question this time around, that immediately becomes a topic of debate. And given human nature, they'll probably take fire from both sides no matter how they word it. That's part of the reasons why bureaucrats favor precedents.
ReplyDeleteFrench now being outclassed in the trolling stakes.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49649586
New EU trade commissioner is Phil Hogan
Irishman Phil Hogan has been named as the EU's new trade commissioner...
It means he will be the EU's chief trade negotiator if and when free trade negotiations commence between the EU and the UK after Brexit.
That could be e.g. John Swinney if we vote Yes.
Phil Hogan for some strange reason is anti Brexit and yet he is an ROI paddy and has no right to interfere in British politics. It is good he got the job because it will help the UK crash out.
DeleteI note the remain media are ratcheting up republican violence in Ireland. That should not be feared as the British Army can deal with Republicans North and South of the border. I doubt the British will be as lenient as they were from 1969 against the fascists who are clearly being encouraged by Irish politicians.
I always like to use the other side's arguments or propaganada against it. So in this case it's the UK Gov's own remit to Crawford & Boyle that condemns the very legality of a Leave / Remain question, as Crawford and Boyle themselves, engaged by the UK Gov to a specific remit, put it:
ReplyDelete"49.
There are three possible outcomes of negotiated Scottish independence in international law: (a) one state that is the continuator of the UK and one new state; (b) two new states (neither of which is the continuator of the UK, which would be extinct); and (c) one state that is the continuator of the UK and one state which reverts to the status of the pre-1707 Scottish state."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf
(a) is Leave, though in theory it could be either the rUK or Scotland is the continuator, (c) is maybe leave, but (b) is definitely NOT leave - it's dissolve.
So having Leave / Remain makes a legal prejudgement which is an absolutely totally incorrect thing to do; it also gives away much negotiating power.
yesindyref2
All the legal jargon is useless and a diversion. The majority vote is the winner in a referendum. So we leave the EU and remain in the UK until another vote overturns this.
DeleteWe voted No to being an Independent Country and afterwards we voted to Remain in the EU. These decisions eilkif the Sovereign people of Scotland will be rendered incompatible should the UK leave the EU. As a later decision of an electorate overrides an earlier one then it is obvious that removing Scotland from the EU automatically dissolves the 1707 Treaty of Union.
DeleteThe UK voted to leave the fascist EU. The Scots voted to remain in the UK. You Nat sis are rather a thick lot when it comes to facts and reality. The reality is that we are leaving the fascist EU and Scotland could become in the future an independent nation free from EU control. Now kangaroo your boomerang is not returning.
DeleteGWC my reply went into the wrong slot. Please see my post below at 1:41am
DeleteAny referendum would be about independence. So the question should be:
ReplyDeleteShould Scotland be Independent or Dependent?
Ireland had " high Kings " but it rotated around from clan to clan. As Kings only lived in office a short time, it whipped around and had mostly ceremonial power, like hosting and agenda setting in an age where these mattered little.
ReplyDeleteWe have a Queen and her people matter to her including the Northern Irish and the the poor subservient to the EU southern Irish. I reckon the southern Irish given a chance would vote to have our Queen although I appreciate that the Irish Taishoch is Queen.
DeleteI think you mean Taoiseach. Xenophobic and an idiot; quelle surprise!
DeleteGWC There is no such thing as a UK vote. The Treaty of Union only combined the Parliaments nothing else. The people of Scotland are Sovereign and cannot be overruled by anyone else's vote. We voted to stay in the EU,the fact that this is incompatible with the earlier No vote to not be independent means there is a legal problem. As I stated a later vote overrules an earlier vote as the constituency changes over time. The only way to alter this is with another referendum, without which the UK automatically dissolves. The Unionists will be the ones crying out for indyref2. Roll on Halloween and freedom from the numpties of Westminster.
ReplyDeleteThe act did not combine it ended both and set a new wan.
DeleteUK is an archaic man-made artificial construct and is smelly.
DeleteOK GWC I concede your point about setting a new one, Parliament that is, but nothing else.
DeleteRumour has it that the Irish Republican Coatbrig Sean O'toole Flute Band has infiltrated the Scottish Nat si party. The Scots are now a minority in their own country due to EU policy.
ReplyDeleteConfirmed is that American nut foreigner Boris "NYC" Johnson is running the UK.
DeleteThere can be no leave/remain question since there can be no continuator state of an extinguished voluntary union of two nations. Indeed, the *only* way Scotland and England can become independent, one of the other, is by the dissolution of their union. Independence is a consequence of that dissolution.
ReplyDeleteProperly then, the only 'correct question' is:
"Should Scotland dissolve its union with England?"
However, I think, "Should Scotland be an independent country?", will do just fine.
The following is extracted from my Feb 2014 article, The Fiction of the Continuing State
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/25/the-fiction-of-the-continuing-state/
The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a legal and political entity formed by the Union of two and only two countries – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). It was created by a bilateral internationally recognised treaty.
It is the case that upon dissolution of the Treaty of Union, its associated enabling acts of parliaments, and any subsequent contingent intra-state treaties and agreements derived therefrom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain will cease to be.
As you might expect, two and only two successor states will emerge from its discarded husk – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. There can be no continuing state of an extinguished voluntary union of two nations. It is on its face a daft proposition.
Consider the tautology: When the Union is dissolved, the Union ceases to be.
The Electoral Commission is the creature of the English state. It should be let nowhere near nor allowed any influence upon our independence referendum process. It should be clear from its pronouncements and by its behaviour that it is akin to a virulent alien pathogen designed to infect and corrupt our body politic.
ReplyDeleteYep - keep the EC well away from out next referendum. No interference at all should be tolerated. Ye just cannae trust them. Oh and for postal votes - well based on the alarming discrepancies observed in 2014, this is an issue that must be sorted. The postal vote exposes the result to all sorts of manipulation. Must be dealt with. Postal votes should generally reflect the overall result, no overturn it. The differences observed in 2014 were mind-blowing.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about the Treaty of Union and the Acts is it says that the Scottish Parliament will henceforth sit as in joint session with the English and names the state it will oversee.
ReplyDeleteWhat it doesn't say is that it no longer exists as a separate entity in its own right. Or that it can no longer sit as such. Which is fortunate as it had done so on occasion styling itself the Scottish Grand Committee until devolution at which point it ceased to do so.
Also missing is any transfer of the power to create Scots Law from them to "Westminster" . I'd argue that's because they still exist and on occasion have had sole responsibility for doing so but the unspoken presumption that Westminster as a whole decides.
The point is that as the Parliament that signed the Treaty and Act of Union still exists it can withdraw from the former and repeal the latter. Should it come to it it should be formally reconvened in Scotland in joint session with Holyrood. The unionist can turn up if they want but if it's as high as 50 MPs then they can't deny its quorate.
As high as that you could do it at the SNP conference.
This is how the union can be brought to an end by Scots MPs voting to withdraw from Westminster.
DeleteFor this, they would ideally need a referendum mandate, but if a referendum is 'refused' by London, then it's not needed; a simple electoral mandate of appropriate form would suffice.
They don't need a referendum to reconvene the Scottish Grand Committee and affirm it as the continuance of the Parliament that signed the Treaty of Union with the Kingdom of England.
DeleteOr to declare that it is through them alone that Westminster holds any claim to exercise sovereignty on behalf of Scotland's people.
Both those are simple clarifications of the reality of things. Obviously there's an obvious consequence that our Parliament may opt to act alone rather than in unison. I'd say that there's actually nothing in the arrangements between the constituent kingdoms of the UK that says they can't.
Also EVEL treats the rUK MPs as a separate entity capable of acting alone which implies the joint session model of Westminster holds.
Scots were right. Boris is a dictator.
ReplyDeleteHe's broken Scots law, and the treaty of union (presumably).
https://twitter.com/BBCandrewkerr/status/1171711489612419072
BBC Andrew Kerr
@BBCandrewkerr
Significant news in Edinburgh - Court of Session rules prorogation of Parliament is unlawful. No measure is being made to cancel prorogation - this will go up to the Supreme Court next week.
"Jolyon Maugham QC, whose Good Law Project funded the legal challenge, said: “Our understanding is that unless the supreme court grants an order in the meantime, parliament is unsuspended with immediate effect."
DeleteBut what are we going to talk about... oh crumbs... let's have a sing-song..
From a Guardianista:
Delete"It's worth remembering that the Queen was at Balmoral, ie under Scottish legal jurisdiction, when the illegal petition for prorogation was made by Mogg and two other pet Tory Privy Councillors.
Next time Mogg or Johnson comes north, they should be arrested."
Russell is correct, we debated the last question for 2 years everyone understands it. I think the next referendum period will be shorter. Let us not muddy the waters. Also despite recent gum bumping the EC approved the last question. A new one will take them an age to approve.
ReplyDeleteDaisley is a joke. I wouldn't trust the time of day from him. He is a Tory propagandist not a journalist.
Oh the delicious irony of a Scots court declaring English Boris's brexit prorogation illegal.
ReplyDeleteThis won't hasten the break-up of the union at all now will it!
LOL.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171726506772631553
Tom Newton Dunn
@tnewtondunn
Sources in No10 now hitting back at the Scottish judges, suggesting they are politically biased: "We note that last week the High Court in London did not rule that prorogation was unlawful. The legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason".
Scotland is not a member of the UK, Scotland IS the UK,well supposedly 50% of the partnership in terms of rights and equalities, a popular deliberate misconception perpetrated on England's population as a method of convincing them that England is the UK and everywhere else is a territory of that country
ReplyDeleteTodays court ruling will serve as an example to Scotland's people that if appealed in the English supreme court successfully that Scotland is in an unequal partnership in the UK because if Scots law is to mean nothing then the partnership that is supposed to exist between us also means nothing and Scotland's opinions are and have been *Prorogued* always and will continue to be so
Now that Scots Law has declared the prorogation illegal, maybe the Scottish MPs should sit (doesn't matter physically where) and bring forward legislation to declare Scotland independent.
ReplyDeleteJob done. Simples.
England, a country continuously endowing itself with titles and honours each one more imprtanty sounding than the one before, the Premier league to the Premiership, HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen mother, see how they manage to get Queen in the title twice, the *Supreme* court, in other words the bestiest strongiest most importantist court ever ever in the world and nobody else's court is more betterer, except the ECJ and England doesn't like that so...
ReplyDelete'England is the mother of parliaments' is a title only used in England, unsurprisingly.
DeleteAll hands to the pump from BBC Scotland in what passes for news nowadays as they read out tweets from unhappy voters condemning the courts decision today on the John Beattie programme
ReplyDeleteScotland must remain withing the UK so that England decides what is legal or not legal, or what is *allowed* or not allowed in Scotland
All of this puzzles me even if you favour the Unionist position in Scotland, attitudes like this mean that no matter the colour or complexion of a *UK* government at any time in the future they can decide, overule any decision that Scotland might make on any subject like remove rights that Scotland has now from your Granny's free bus pass, to the bedroom tax, to personal care for the elderly, cancer treatment to under 65s, to removing voting rights from 16-17 year olds, they can do anything they want and call it *for the good of *the country* and no Scottish government of any political stripe could stop them
Stuart Campbell over on Wings now losing the plot again with anyone who doesn't agree with him by threatening to ban them and just generally foul mouthing anybody who has another opinion because his and only his judgement on political matters is what counts
ReplyDeleteOn present behaviour Wings shelf life appears shorter by the day, but maybe that's his intention
I can't see how today's court ruling is bad for indy.
ReplyDeleteIt won't stop brexit, but will absolutely rile the English nationalists / brexiters, which are one and the same. If the Supreme Court feels it must uphold the verdict of the 'pretendy smelly sock courts', all hell will break loose, even if we still are on course for an exit.
Not only will the English nats be up in anit-Scottish arms, but we could see legal cases arguing about the legality of exiting on the 31st and/or whether the treaty of union has been broken. The UK union is bound by respect for Scots law and the Scots parliament sitting alongside the English parliament in London. The English may be legally able to shut their own, but not the British/Scottish one....
What happens if the Surpremest court in the great English, sorry British universe rules that the prorogation was legal in England, but not in Scotland. What then?
Our constitution crisis is really starting to get going now. We've had the aperitif, and now the starter is being prepared. Many courses to go!
What's key is that if the SNP did somehow manage to actually stop England's brexit, the UK would be over within a year. England is not ruled by the british one nationists any more, but by the English nats. These are in charge of Con, Brex and Lab. The constitutional crisis can only get worse as a result.
England is ok with the union as long as it gets its way. Right now, N. Ireland poses a mother of a problem to it, with Scotland in second place. Their is no solution to N. Ireland other than it staying in the EU. Scotland will then pose the next problem, but by then, the N. Ireland has already started the dominos toppling.
If the English UK Supreme court rules that the ruling executive of the UK parliament has the political right to prorogue parliament at a time or for an amount of time of its choosing then that will set a precedent for not just 2 weeks or 3 weeks or 3 months or 3 years or could it be 311 years, the Supreme court would be gifting the UK ruling executive the power of dictatorship, but legally
ReplyDelete