UK's Johnson says devolving powers to Scotland was 'a disaster'

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

again you are distorting the truth, you know very well the Scots deserve the same right to leave the UK as the UK has to leave the EU

The Scots don't want to leave, it is you that is twisting facts, I can catagorically state that the Scots had a referendum in 2014 and voted to remain within the United Kingdom, what 'facts' have you got to say any different, emphasis on 'facts'

[Neeranam]

Just now, vogie said:

The Scots don't want to leave, it is you that is twisting facts, I can catagorically state that the Scots had a referendum in 2014 and voted to remain within the United Kingdom, what 'facts' have you got to say any different, emphasis on 'facts'

Was hardly fair was it? All the propaganda by the BBC and the government not disclosing the truth about new oilfileds. 

[vogie]

Just now, Neeranam said:

Was hardly fair was it? All the propaganda by the BBC and the government not disclosing the truth about new oilfileds. 

It was your old mate Alec Salmond that lied to the Scots about the oilfields.

[RuamRudy]

18 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

again you are distorting the truth, you know very well the Scots deserve the same right to leave the UK as the UK has to leave the EU

 

And, also, that the results of the 2014 referendum were honoured, even though the promises made to us if we stayed were not. 

[7by7]

28 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Moves are afoot to void the 1707 act of union. This would be a game changer if it were to succeed.

HTH

 

Old news, Cliffie. 

 

Those moves came from No.10 last August: SNP accuses No 10 of endangering Acts of Union with judicial review inquiry

Quote

Cherry said: “The authority and privileges of the court of session including its inherent supervisory jurisdiction are protected by article 19 of the Acts of Union and the underlying treaty of union......"

 

 

Which may seem somewhat ironic as the SNP's declared aim is, of course, to leave the UK!

 

Were Scotland to leave the UK then the 1707 Act, which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain, would need to be repealed. It's not impossible for Parliament to repeal an Act; not even rare!

 

There is a sort precedent for this; the union formed by the 1801 Act was amended from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

Of course, were Scotland to leave the UK that would need to be amended to something like the United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Until and unless Northern Ireland votes to join the Republic when another change would be required.

 

There have also been arguments for a new Act coming from those opposed to Scottish Independence: The case for a new Act of Union. In which Daisley suggests, amongst other things, making elections and referendums reserved matters for Westminster alone.

[7by7]

41 minutes ago, vogie said:

The Scots don't want to leave, it is you that is twisting facts, I can catagorically state that the Scots had a referendum in 2014 and voted to remain within the United Kingdom, what 'facts' have you got to say any different, emphasis on 'facts'

 

Fact 1) The Scots voted in 2014 by 55.3% to 44.7% to remain part of a United Kingdom which was, and, as Brexit was not even on the agenda, was going to remain, a member of the EU.

 

Fact 2) The Scots voted in 2016 by 62.0% to 38.0% to remain in the EU.

 

I am a unionist; but am also a democrat. I believe these two facts alone provide a convincing argument for giving the Scots another referendum on their future.

 

The only reason I can conceive for you being against giving them that chance is that you are afraid that independence will win!

 

 

[talahtnut]

11 hours ago, soalbundy said:

It could be the last straw, how ironic, blasting the EU saying we want our country back then denying a country within its own realm of power the same right. The UK  has left a power block for spurious reasons and is now about to get even smaller, wait now for Wales to start getting fidgety.

Not forgetting Cornwall which has been simmering for years,

Now I'm looking at declaring UDI for Essex, several friends are keen,

I've already appointed myself as King of Essex. The new currency will

be the gold sov, the pony, the monkey and the 2bob note.

 

 

[Rookiescot]

Oh how I love those Brexiteers with their "will of the people" and "its democracy" trying to prevent Scotland becoming independent.

Fact is guys we are already gone. You just need to get used to the idea.

You were well warned that voting for Brexit risked the union but you all went ahead and did it anyway. 

So its a small price to pay is it not?

[RuamRudy]

45 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Old news, Cliffie. 

 

Those moves came from No.10 last August: SNP accuses No 10 of endangering Acts of Union with judicial review inquiry

 

 

Which may seem somewhat ironic as the SNP's declared aim is, of course, to leave the UK!

 

Were Scotland to leave the UK then the 1707 Act, which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain, would need to be repealed. It's not impossible for Parliament to repeal an Act; not even rare!

 

There is a sort precedent for this; the union formed by the 1801 Act was amended from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

Of course, were Scotland to leave the UK that would need to be amended to something like the United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Until and unless Northern Ireland votes to join the Republic when another change would be required.

 

There have also been arguments for a new Act coming from those opposed to Scottish Independence: The case for a new Act of Union. In which Daisley suggests, amongst other things, making elections and referendums reserved matters for Westminster alone.

 

I suspect what Evadgib is referring to is the ongoing crowdfunded case of the 'People's Action on Section 30' which is winding its way through the Scottish courts at the moment.

 

Putting aside one's feelings on the objective, it is an interesting insight into the arcane procedures of Scottish law: "...Forward As One is asking the court to declare that the Scottish Parliament has the power under the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 to legislate for the holding of a referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country, without requiring the consent of the UK Government."

 

Judge gives green light to landmark Section 30 court case

[evadgib]

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Old news, Cliffie. 

 

Those moves came from No.10 last August: SNP accuses No 10 of endangering Acts of Union with judicial review inquiry

 

 

Which may seem somewhat ironic as the SNP's declared aim is, of course, to leave the UK!

 

Were Scotland to leave the UK then the 1707 Act, which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain, would need to be repealed. It's not impossible for Parliament to repeal an Act; not even rare!

 

There is a sort precedent for this; the union formed by the 1801 Act was amended from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

Of course, were Scotland to leave the UK that would need to be amended to something like the United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Until and unless Northern Ireland votes to join the Republic when another change would be required.

 

There have also been arguments for a new Act coming from those opposed to Scottish Independence: The case for a new Act of Union. In which Daisley suggests, amongst other things, making elections and referendums reserved matters for Westminster alone.

Wrong tree entirely, again.

 

[evadgib]

14 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I suspect what Evadgib is referring to is the ongoing crowdfunded case of the 'People's Action on Section 30' which is winding its way through the Scottish courts at the moment.

 

Putting aside one's feelings on the objective, it is an interesting insight into the arcane procedures of Scottish law: "...Forward As One is asking the court to declare that the Scottish Parliament has the power under the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 to legislate for the holding of a referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country, without requiring the consent of the UK Government."

 

Judge gives green light to landmark Section 30 court case

I wasn't aware of that RR; My attention is drawn in the other direction.

Edited November 18, 2020 by evadgib

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

The Scots don't want to leave, it is you that is twisting facts, I can catagorically state that the Scots had a referendum in 2014 and voted to remain within the United Kingdom, what 'facts' have you got to say any different, emphasis on 'facts'

Then you’ve got nothing to fear from the next referendum.

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I suspect what Evadgib is referring to is the ongoing crowdfunded case of the 'People's Action on Section 30' which is winding its way through the Scottish courts at the moment.

 

Putting aside one's feelings on the objective, it is an interesting insight into the arcane procedures of Scottish law: "...Forward As One is asking the court to declare that the Scottish Parliament has the power under the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 to legislate for the holding of a referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country, without requiring the consent of the UK Government."

 

Judge gives green light to landmark Section 30 court case

That supporters of Brexit have a problem with the people of Scotland deciding their own membership of the Union is a bit of a puzzle.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then you’ve got nothing to fear from the next referendum.

Wish I could wait 40 years.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, vogie said:

Wish I could wait 40 years.

Not your choice.

 

[7by7]

37 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Wrong tree entirely, again.

 

 

29 minutes ago, evadgib said:

I wasn't aware of that RR; My attention is drawn in the other direction.

 Oh, I see. 

 

Is this another event of national significance only you and your  WWG1WGA mates know about and is so secret that you cannot say what it is?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

 Oh, I see. 

 

Is this another event of national significance only you and your  WWG1WGA mates know about and is so secret that you cannot say what it is?

Says man speaking in code.

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, talahtnut said:

Not forgetting Cornwall which has been simmering for years,

Now I'm looking at declaring UDI for Essex, several friends are keen,

I've already appointed myself as King of Essex. The new currency will

be the gold sov, the pony, the monkey and the 2bob note.

 

 

Essex, I was glad to see the back of it.

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Essex, I was glad to see the back of it.

I spent a summer in Essex, I rather enjoyed it.

 

That part of England is replete with history and  while there I got to visit Maldon, a site memorialized in a poem of which my boyhood efforts to translate the text caused sweating and frustration in equal measure, each according to our roles in that painful struggle, from me and my English Master.

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[evadgib]

43 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 Oh, I see. 

 

Is this another event of national significance only you and your  WWG1WGA mates know about and is so secret that you cannot say what it is?

We're not going down that road again are we? 'I mentioned it once....' an' all that?

[Stupooey]

3 hours ago, Mavideol said:

I asked that same  question around 3 months ago @vogie@transam and a couple others, they ignored it as it was not a convenient question... old saying from Confucius or a Bible  “Don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you”

 

Some say that this phrase was coined by Confucius, whereas others believe that it comes from a verse in the Bible. The truth is that regardless, it’s a golden rule from which moral, ethical and legal codes emerge.

 

Your post has reminded me of two George Bernard Shaw quotes:

 

“Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.”

 

"The golden rule is that there are no golden rules."

 

Ever the fly in the ointment.

 

[7by7]

59 minutes ago, evadgib said:

We're not going down that road again are we? 'I mentioned it once....' an' all that?

 

Every time you pretend to have knowledge us plebs aren't privy to, Cliffie.

 

[evadgib]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Every time you pretend to have knowledge us plebs aren't privy to, Cliffie.

 

If you're going back into 'stalking' mode i'm not interested but please let us in on this 'Cliffie' lark as i'm too thick to work it out. Does it qualify as banter (no problem if 'yes' but it's taken a while...) or shall I file it under abuse?

 

G'nite 49 ????

[RayC]

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The Good Friday Agreement actually defines clearly the circumstances and conditions under which a reunification poll can be held. It states that in the event of the status quo being chosen, another poll cannot be held of a generation, which it goes on to define as lasting a minimum of 7 years. 

Which rather begs the question, why weren't the circumstances and conditions under which another Scottish referendum could take place defined and agreed before 2014?

 

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

But that aside, if we went ahead with your +/- 20 year definition, what would be your approach to dealing with a consistent majority polling in favour of Yes? Would you just tell them that now was not the time? Hardly democratic to deny the will of the majority, is it?

Perhaps not but then democracy is not perfect. There is also the other side of the coin to consider. What happens if, say, 6 years after leaving the UK and/or rejoining the EU, a consistent majority of opinion polls suggest that the Scottish public wish to rejoin the UK and/or leave the EU? Do we hold another referendum? What about the effects on England, Wales & N. Ireland and/or the EU? Are these nations to be beholden to opinion polls about the desires of the Scottish public without any consideration of the effects and disruption caused to ourselves? 

 

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

In the Holyrood elections next spring, there are suggestions that the SNP might get over 50% of the votes. Add to that the votes for the Greens, the SSP and ISP, all overtly independence supporting parties, and the numbers could reach 55% of votes going to independence supporting parties. Should we still wait for a protracted period because someone in another country deems it so?

I'm sure we can agree that a referendum on sovereignty is a major event. It will have major implications for both nations. Even if the separation is amicable, well-planned and well implemented, it will not happen overnight and many of its' effects will take years to be realised.

 

For these and other reasons, if we must have referendums then imo they should be as infrequent as possible. 

[7by7]

24 minutes ago, evadgib said:

If you're going back into 'stalking' mode i'm not interested but please let us in on this 'Cliffie' lark as i'm too thick to work it out. Does it qualify as banter (no problem if 'yes' but it's taken a while...) or shall I file it under abuse?

 

G'nite 49 ????

 Stalking? No, responding to those of your posts I wish too; that is what happens on an internet forum!

 

Cliffie? I repeat: your frequent allusions and explicit claims to possessing special knowledge that the rest of us are not privy to makes you the Clifford Clavin of this board. (Google is your friend.) 

 

You can file it where you like. 

 

[RayC]

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

One of the many promises made in 2014 to keep the Scots pliant was, in the event of a no vote, the closest thing possible to a federal UK.

Can you supply the quote/ reference please?

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Of the 650 odd MPs in the HoC, around 550 represent English constituencies.

533 (82% of the total), which is just about proportionate given that England accounts for 84% of the UK population.

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Party politics has broken down in the UK, or at least in Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales, so now we have regional differences rather than political differences at play. 

The political landscape has definitely changed as a result of the Brexit result and regional differences seem to have been heightened; however, regional differences have always existed and been played out in the political sphere.

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

At the moment, the English decide the direction of the UK irrespective of the wishes of the other countries in the Union.

A truism but this is not undemocratic given the respective sizes of the constituent nations. Whether this English domination is a good or bad thing is obviously a matter of opinion.

 

Your comment also infers that England speaks with 'one' voice which is not the case. There are many regional differences within England which manifest themselves politically.

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I see no way that this could be changed without the dissolution of the UK. 

Within the context of your previous sentence almost certainly true. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another matter.

[RuamRudy]

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

One of the many promises made in 2014 to keep the Scots pliant was, in the event of a no vote, the closest thing possible to a federal UK.

Can you supply the quote/ reference please?

Gordon Brown is right: federalism is on its way if the Scots shun independence

 

See also the pretentiously title work of fiction, 'the vow': What now for 'the vow'?

 

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

Quote

 

Of the 650 odd MPs in the HoC, around 550 represent English constituencies.

533 (82% of the total), which is just about proportionate given that England accounts for 84% of the UK population.

 

My point was not a criticism but an observation.

 

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

Quote

 

Party politics has broken down in the UK, or at least in Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales, so now we have regional differences rather than political differences at play. 

The political landscape has definitely changed as a result of the Brexit result and regional differences seem to have been heightened; however, regional differences have always existed and been played out in the political sphere.

 

But it is only within the last 10 years that Scotland has completely eschewed UK national parties and gone its own way. We are no longer a united kingdom and our priorities and aspirations appear to be at odds with those of England.

 

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

Quote

 

At the moment, the English decide the direction of the UK irrespective of the wishes of the other countries in the Union.

A truism but this is not undemocratic given the respective sizes of the constituent nations. Whether this English domination is a good or bad thing is obviously a matter of opinion.

 

Again, not a criticism but a statement of fact. Any single country overruling the political will of another countries is surely a bad thing? I can see absolutely no situation where there can be anything positive derived from it. 

 

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

Quote

 

I see no way that this could be changed without the dissolution of the UK. 

Within the context of your previous sentence almost certainly true. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another matter.

 

There is no reason that it cannot be a good thing for all countries in the UK. 

[baansgr]

Just give the English a referendum to get independence from Scotland...

[Scott]

A post containing a slur has been removed.

 

[Neeranam]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The only reason I can conceive for you being against giving them that chance is that you are afraid that independence will win!

They like the feeling of power having us colonized gives them ????

 

 

Perhaps the best definition of colonialism has been offered by Ronald Horvath in his 1972 A Definition of Colonialism:

It seems generally, if not universally, agreed that colonialism is a form of domination – the control by individuals or groups over the territory and/or behaviour of other individuals or groups. (Colonialism has also been seen as a form of exploitation, with emphasis on economic variables, as in the Marxist-Leninist literature, and as a culture-change process, as in anthropology… The idea of domination is closely related to the concept of power. (Horvath, 1972)

Edited November 19, 2020 by Neeranam