The Independence Vote, Afterwards.

[Blaven]

Eh?

Make your point and stop being weird.

Ok since you asked nice.

Protesting on the streets of Scotland against Westminster is utterly futile.

Do you think that shitting on your own doorstep will make the people of Westminster sit up and take notice?

No protests will ever get out of Scotland never mind all the way to London.

So what will civil unrest change? F*ck all.

You cant make Westminster agree to recognise another referendum if they choose not to recognise it.

Remember, they dont want to loose Scotland.

Do you think they would risk another referendum if YES was favourite?

[lichtgilphead]

Bizarre.

1) I never used the words riots or violence. I said there would be mass protests on the streets, and that I would be part of the protests.

2) It's a completely moot point though, as it will never happen. Westminster isn't stupid enough to veto a bill passed by the Scottish Parliament.

1) You did use the word "unrest", however. What do you plan to do? How will you articulate your protest?

2) So, if the democratically elected Scottish Parliament passed a bill declaring UDI tomorrow, you would be happy for Westminster to sit back and say "Go for it"? Even more importantly, you really believe that they would take no action?

[Blaven]

Ok lex I apologise you never used the term riots.

I sadly mistook the term "civil unrest" to imply riots.

I now see that your term "civil unrest" was to be taken to imply a "tea party" at Glasgow green.

Once again, sorry old chap.

[Lex]

1) You did use the word "unrest", however. What do you plan to do? How will you articulate your protest?

2) So, if the democratically elected Scottish Parliament passed a bill declaring UDI tomorrow, you would be happy for Westminster to sit back and say "Go for it"? Even more importantly, you really believe that they would take no action?

1) Mass protest is civil unrest.

2) This is you being deliberately ridiculous.

[Blaven]

1) Mass protest is civil unrest.

2) This is you being deliberately ridiculous.

O o ooo a protest rally. Is that like those ones they used to have at Faslane?

[lichtgilphead]

1) Mass protest is civil unrest.

2) This is you being deliberately ridiculous.

1) Agreed. However, I asked you how you were going to articulate your protest. Why are you unable to give details?

2) Why? Has no-one else ever declared UDI?

I need to point out that you have claimed that the UK government would not veto a referendum bill, but you now appear to be claiming that they would veto UDI. Both are reserved matters. Why do you think that the UK government would take differing views on these 2 scenarios?

[Blaven]

1) Agreed. However, I asked you how you were going to articulate your protest. Why are you unable to give details?

2) Why? Has no-one else ever declared UDI?

I need to point out that you have claimed that the UK government would not veto a referendum bill, but you now appear to be claiming that they would veto UDI. Both are reserved matters. Why do you think that the UK government would take differing views on these 2 scenarios?

Await the usual "scaremonger" retort.

[lichtgilphead]

Await the usual "scaremonger" retort.

As you know, I'm not scaremongering. I'm just wondering how Lex will justify his own contradictory views

[Lex]

1) Agreed. However, I asked you how you were going to articulate your protest. Why are you unable to give details?

2) Why? Has no-one else ever declared UDI?

I need to point out that you have claimed that the UK government would not veto a referendum bill, but you now appear to be claiming that they would veto UDI. Both are reserved matters. Why do you think that the UK government would take differing views on these 2 scenarios?

1). I will join the protests on the streets... How else?

2). Is this a serious point? I mean, really? Jeez...

It's like saying what would happen if the Scottish Parliament legalised all guns tomorrow. Passing a major bill which had never been part of a campaign and they had never mentioned prior would simply never happen.

The SNP never campaigned on a Declaration of Independence bill. Had they, or if they do in the future, they won't get a majority. They campaigned on a referendum bill, and I imagine they will again after the no vote.

They win a majority in the next parliamentary elections they get their referendum if they want it. Just like they have done.

The SNP has no interest in independence without the mandate of a yes vote in a referendum. You should know that, come on. It's pointless hypothesising.

[lichtgilphead]

1). I will join the protests on the streets... How else?

I thought you claimed to have such committed views. The answer above is a total copout.

Let's leave the conversation here until you can actually state your plans.

2). Is this a serious point? I mean, really? Jeez...

It is, yes. You claim that the UK Government won't veto any further referendum bill passed by a Scottish Government (even though the Scottish Government have no powers to pass such a bill), but appear to claim that they will veto a more ambitious bill.

I'm genuinely interested in your views as to what ultra vires Scottish Government legislation you think that the UK Govt will tolerate before this veto applies.

[Ad Lib]

I need to point out that you have claimed that the UK government would not veto a referendum bill, but you now appear to be claiming that they would veto UDI. Both are reserved matters. Why do you think that the UK government would take differing views on these 2 scenarios?

It's fairly realistic to expect, there having been a precedent set in political terms if not legal terms, through the Edinburgh Agreement, that the UK Government would find it difficult to object to another referendum being legislated for by the Scottish Parliament on Scottish independence, say, 20 years down the line. Depending upon the prevailing structural arrangements at that time, that may require Westminster legislation to render it competent, as was the case this time around.

By the same sentiment, however, there is now a political precedent and a growing peremptory norm in the broader framework of international law and the domestic jurisdictions paying heed to it, that democratic structures and especially plebiscites should be in place to facilitate self-determination, and UDI is increasingly constrained to circumstances in which seceding countries are ravaged by war or subjected to raw and unencumbered power politics.

It would be very difficult to see a set of circumstances where Westminster would recognise as lawful a UDI Act from Holyrood, it violating both competence and the whole range of norms which underpin our political constitution. A refusal to recognise would go hand in glove with vetoing Scottish membership of international bodies and retaliatory sanctions in such an antagonistic situation. Were it only a question of an ultra vires referendum, the politics would be more difficult for them to resist, there having been a direct appeal to the people, consistent in all respects other than domestic legislative competence with the values in international law and in a political constitution living under a system of democratic values. Given, in particular, the fact that not all independence referendums that have satisfied international law necessarily took place under a framework of domestic law at all, there is not the same kind of political capital or incentive structure behind a veto of that as there is a UDI.

[Blaven]

1). I will join the protests on the streets... How else?

2). Is this a serious point? I mean, really? Jeez...

It's like saying what would happen if the Scottish Parliament legalised all guns tomorrow. Passing a major bill which had never been part of a campaign and they had never mentioned prior would simply never happen.

The SNP never campaigned on a Declaration of Independence bill. Had they, or if they do in the future, they won't get a majority. They campaigned on a referendum bill, and I imagine they will again after the no vote.

They win a majority in the next parliamentary elections they get their referendum if they want it. Just like they have done.

The SNP has no interest in independence without the mandate of a yes vote in a referendum. You should know that, come on. It's pointless hypothesising.

Once again Lex you miss the point.

The SNP CANT have independence without a YES vote in a referendum.

But the point which you are totaly blind to, is that WITHOUT Westminster agreeing to recognise any future referendum then said referendum would NOT be legal.

Westminster retains the power over any future referendum an can also set the terms of said referendum.

Now you may take to the streets of SCOTLAND to protest, but to think that would force the hand of Westminster to give you what you want is idiotic ignorance.

Those who say we are not ready yet really need to wake up to the fact that this is the very last chance Scotland has.

Westminster parties cant even agree on extra powers after a No vote. They really, really dont want to relenquish any more power to Scotland let alone give us our own independence.

[I'm Brian]

Now you may take to the streets of SCOTLAND to protest, but to think that would force the hand of Westminster to give you what you want is idiotic ignorance.

Quite. History has proved that when Scotland peacefully and legitimately protests, Westminster ignores, but when England riots, they tend to concede.

They really, really dont want to relenquish any more power to Scotland let alone give us our own independence.

IMO they want to take the parliament away. Rather than "killing nationalism stone dead" it has strengthened it. It's like everything else in life, if you give a little bit of something to someone and they like the taste, they will want more.

It was designed to keep 'the nationalists' on a leash. The voting system was designed to stop 'the nationalists' getting an outright majority. Their plans have spectacularly failed. Post a no vote they will put other measures in place to try and stop them. Of this I have no doubt.

I believe there will be a referendum in the future should this one be unsuccessful. However how winnable that one will be will be down to what measures Westminster put into place to protect themselves. We have a relatively even playing field now. We need to grasp it now before we are unable to.

[Granny Danger]

Quite. History has proved that when Scotland peacefully and legitimately protests, Westminster ignores, but when England riots, they tend to concede.

Point taken. To get the ball rolling I have gone out this morning and smashed a few windows.

However my wife is complaining as there's now a gale howling through our house.

[lichtgilphead]

It's fairly realistic to expect, there having been a precedent set in political terms if not legal terms, through the Edinburgh Agreement, that the UK Government would find it difficult to object to another referendum being legislated for by the Scottish Parliament on Scottish independence, say, 20 years down the line. Depending upon the prevailing structural arrangements at that time, that may require Westminster legislation to render it competent, as was the case this time around.

By the same sentiment, however, there is now a political precedent and a growing peremptory norm in the broader framework of international law and the domestic jurisdictions paying heed to it, that democratic structures and especially plebiscites should be in place to facilitate self-determination, and UDI is increasingly constrained to circumstances in which seceding countries are ravaged by war or subjected to raw and unencumbered power politics.

It would be very difficult to see a set of circumstances where Westminster would recognise as lawful a UDI Act from Holyrood, it violating both competence and the whole range of norms which underpin our political constitution. A refusal to recognise would go hand in glove with vetoing Scottish membership of international bodies and retaliatory sanctions in such an antagonistic situation. Were it only a question of an ultra vires referendum, the politics would be more difficult for them to resist, there having been a direct appeal to the people, consistent in all respects other than domestic legislative competence with the values in international law and in a political constitution living under a system of democratic values. Given, in particular, the fact that not all independence referendums that have satisfied international law necessarily took place under a framework of domestic law at all, there is not the same kind of political capital or incentive structure behind a veto of that as there is a UDI.

Three long & verbose paragraphs which can be summarised in a couple of lines.

"The UK Government would not accept Scotland declaring UDI." and "We would need the UK Government's permission to hold a further referendum"

The rest of it is just padding & opinion as to what the UK might be willing to give us in the future.

I have already stated my opinion that any future referendum will require a higher "Yes" vote, either through a variant of the 40% rule or through setting the win threshold higher than 50%.

Accordingly, I don't think that anyone should be seduced by promises that we can have a further referendum any time we want.

[Mr. Bojangles]

Three long & verbose paragraphs which can be summarised in a couple of lines.

"The UK Government would not accept Scotland declaring UDI." and "We would need the UK Government's permission to hold a further referendum"

The rest of it is just padding & opinion as to what the UK might be willing to give us in the future.

I have already stated my opinion that any future referendum will require a higher "Yes" vote, either through a variant of the 40% rule or through setting the win threshold higher than 50%.

Accordingly, I don't think that anyone should be seduced by promises that we can have a further referendum any time we want.

The Canadian Clarity Act is a great (or not so great if you believe in liberty) example of a socially progressive government turning it's back on a referendum precedent and setting ridiculous expectations on any future vote.

[Confidemus]

Three long & verbose paragraphs which can be summarised in a couple of lines.

"The UK Government would not accept Scotland declaring UDI." and "We would need the UK Government's permission to hold a further referendum"

The rest of it is just padding & opinion as to what the UK might be willing to give us in the future.

I have already stated my opinion that any future referendum will require a higher "Yes" vote, either through a variant of the 40% rule or through setting the win threshold higher than 50%.

Accordingly, I don't think that anyone should be seduced by promises that we can have a further referendum any time we want.

This seems to be a new tactic amongst the No fraternity - "Don't worry, if we don't get independence now, we'll get another referendum"

Even supposing that is the case, which I don't necessarily think will happen, I have to ask the question "Why then if not now?"

What's going to be different in 20 or 30 years compared to now? Why not grasp the chance now while we have it?

[YassinMoutaouakil]

BUT WHICH STREETS?!

[pandarilla]

This seems to be a new tactic amongst the No fraternity - "Don't worry, if we don't get independence now, we'll get another referendum"

Even supposing that is the case, which I don't necessarily think will happen, I have to ask the question "Why then if not now?"

What's going to be different in 20 or 30 years compared to now? Why not grasp the chance now while we have it?

Lots of stuff.

That's like saying things are no different to how they were in 1979.

This is a strange debate - and for the first time ever (I think), I totally agree with Lex. In the unfortunate event of a No vote, we will get another chance. It won't be soon but democracy will win out in the end. The Scottish people do not like being told what they can and cannot do and a Westminster government that refused a referendum or set ridiculous rules would be on a hiding to nothing.

This actually seems like a bit of a scare story from the Yes campaign. Or is this not part of an official campaign?

[Grizzly]

Of course Westminster won't give us another referendum. They know they'd lose it second time round.