Quote of the day (sorry, Brexit related)

[Talking Heads]

Another referendum on Scottish independence very much on the cards, First Minister of Scotland already has a mandate to call one and can do so at any time.
What is perhaps confusing is the mistaken idea that the people of Scotland need England's permission.
Do we ****.

[Bibio]

Scotland cannot hold a referendum at any time it chooses it must ask permission from Westminster to set a date, if Westminster deny the right of the peoples of Scotland to hold a referendum its breaking the law. Scotland are still governed by Westminster its just that Scotland is now devolved and holds its own governing powers of tax and local affairs which were granted by Westminster. Scotland must ask permission from Westminster but namely the crown to change any act regarding the union.

i could be wrong but Scotland is the only member of the union that was introduced via "political negotiation".

[Biker Biggles]

Originally Posted by embee

Without throwing brick-bats, I think Corbyn has shot himself in the foot with his stance on not joining in with discussions. Whether May does or does not take anything off the table, and as said in her letter neither she nor the government can stop no-deal, only parliament can do that, discussion really is the only way forward from where we are now. Whatever May comes up with in the next few days or next couple of weeks, parliament will have to approve what we go with so Corbyn's red lines are completely irrelevant.
We are in binary choice territory. Either we come up with a proposal or we don't. No proposal means either no-deal exit or revoke art50, that's it. A proposal means maybe the EU will consider an extension of art50 to allow enough time to pass it through parliament and agree it with the other 27. That's a big ask by anyone's standards but it's the only real alternative option, and it would have to be an almost foregone conclusion before the EU would agree to it.
I'm still not sure what the majority opinion of the Brexit voters is. Whatever outcome we end up with, I suspect the majority of the UK population will not be happy.
On balance of probability, I suspect we will leave with no-deal. If we revoked art50 the UK would have lost all international credibility and possibly risk civil unrest at home. I know it's only my opinion, but this is a case of the worst outcome being the only viable one. One thing we can be sure of is that whatever the outcome it will be blamed on the EU.

I agree with all that except the last bit. I think there are enough grown ups left in parliament to ensure that no deal does not happen, indeed that is just about the only thing that has a significant majority. If no other deal commands a majority then Art 50 will have to be withdrawn. I actually think doing so would go some way to restoring our international credibility which I believe to be at an all time low because of all this brexit nonsense. The sooner we stop it the better.

[embee]

I hope you're right, I just fear the repercussions at home. Could easily turn nasty.

[Talking Heads]

Originally Posted by Bibio

Scotland cannot hold a referendum at any time it chooses it must ask permission from Westminster to set a date, if Westminster deny the right of the peoples of Scotland to hold a referendum its breaking the law. Scotland are still governed by Westminster its just that Scotland is now devolved and holds its own governing powers of tax and local affairs which were granted by Westminster. Scotland must ask permission from Westminster but namely the crown to change any act regarding the union.

i could be wrong but Scotland is the only member of the union that was introduced via "political negotiation".

No permission required.
A people have the right to self determination.
International law trumps UK law.

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by Talking Heads

No permission required.
A people have the right to self determination.
International law trumps UK law.

nope. if that were the case then Catalonia would be an independent country.

if it were not for A50 then the UK could not leave the EU. same applies to Scotland. trust me if there were a loop hole it would have been used by now.

the public can only "serve" petitions to the sitting Government otherwise it needs an act of Parliament to hold a "vote". if the public tried to hold a vote outside of Parliament approval it is null and void but if there are enough "votes" then Parliament must take the wishes of the people into consideration, it does not have to approve anything.

there is another way but then Scotland's politicians would be classed as "terrorists", think Republic of Ireland back in the day

BTW even if Scotland hold another referendum and win by a landslide Parliament does not have to honour it.

since the other three of the four members of the union have their own "talking shop" i fully believe that England should have their own and a budget set on them. Westminster would then become a "talking shop" for all the members to have their say and control "national" funding such as the military. each member of the union in Westminster should have the same amount of members so there is no "majority".

[SV650rules]

Originally Posted by Talking Heads

No permission required.
A people have the right to self determination.
International law trumps UK law.

We have discussed this before on this forum, Scotland is not empowered to change its relationship with rest of UK without permission from Westminster ....

[Talking Heads]

I think you're both wrong.
Time will tell what happens but one thing is assured, its going to be a mess.

[littleoldman2]

Originally Posted by Bibio

since the other three of the four members of the union have their own "talking shop" i fully believe that England should have their own and a budget set on them. Westminster would then become a "talking shop" for all the members to have their say and control "national" funding such as the military. each member of the union in Westminster should have the same amount of members so there is no "majority".

Agreed but there needs to be more than one. The size of population compared to that of the other entities is glaring. London effectively already has one and it's current leaders are using it (including financial contributions ?) to great effect to meddle it national affairs. Removing the London influence from an English assembly would make one much more acceptable to the rest of us.
But I think we have much more to deal with at the present.
Any way I'm of back to bed.

[Chris_SVS]

What to we think on the talk of Green Cards making a return in the event of no-deal? Link