When will indyref2 happen?

[John Lambies Doos]

How does this work in practice? If we can get a large enough AUOB march can we just do UDI?

Should have done that when we got 56/59 seats in WM..

[ArabianKnight]

2 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

But realistically, the pandemic and Brexit has nothing to do with why unionists don't want a referendum. They'll never want one. There will always be a reason why "now is not the time". Is anyone thinking we're just going to wait for that time in politics where nothing else is happening?

It's time when we (Scottish electorate) say it is.

Well yeah that's what I was getting. The under lying seems to be that the SNP will take a majority in Holyrood as the go ahead to just get on with it. 

[Ira Gaines]

They can't just "get on with it" though. They'll need to make sure it's legally binding. Otherwise the rest of the world will turn a blind eye. 

[ArabianKnight]

3 minutes ago, Andre Drazen said:

They can't just "get on with it" though. They'll need to make sure it's legally binding. Otherwise the rest of the world will turn a blind eye. 

You aren't following this through very well let me spell it out for you. 

UDIs are problematic only when they aren't recognised and accepted by the international community. The basis of their acceptance is on democratic and legal grounds. No doubt Ad Lib will come along and correct me on this but if a party of government is elected on a specific mandate to hold a referendum in a legally binding and valid election then it is merely carrying out the wishes of the electorate. 

Just because one other part of a unitary state under which the first country is joined in a treaty says they can't doesn't make it so 

Especially when you look at things like the claim of right etc which affers sovereignty to the people rather than the parliament. 

Do you honestly think the world wouldn't accept Scotland as a sovereign independent country if it was shown that the government elected was carrying out the wishes of the people, I would think that the UN charter which specifically states nations have the right to self determination would be upheld in this instance. 

We're not talking about some tin pot regime proclaiming independence for Fucknowsistan, we're talking about a developed first world country asserting the sovereignty of its people through due process and democracy. 

[HTG]

It feels like the focus on "the will of the people" is preparation for a Supreme Court challenge in the event of S30 refusal. There has to be a coherent and realistic Plan B in 2021. The SNP can't just go on winning elections and having the results ignored. 

[Detournement]

Are the NEC results likely to change anything?

Alyn Smith appears to be strongly connected to the EU and NATO so likely have to been a conservative bulwark on policy.  

[Boo Khaki]

On 30/11/2020 at 05:41, Durex Play said:

 

More magic number by the nats

 

Would that majority you speak of be the 1,270,502 who voted for parties backing Indy or the, in your words the minority of 1,488,559 who voted for parties against a second referendum?

 

It doesn’t take a mathematician to to work out the flaw in the nationalists claims.

 

Polls mean Jack shit as can be seen from many eloctoral votes which have taken place over the last 5 years such as Trump, Brexit and the GE’s. The only poll that matters was the official one where the electorate visited the polling station. Even the hardy souls in Blackford’s constituency who had to vote in December. Kudos to them

 

The nats are living in cloud cuckoo land thinking there’s any appetite for a referendum never mind full blown independence. Any Indy ref wouldn’t be party specific. It would again be a simple aye or naw.

 

Keep believing that Indy will take place next year just as you have been getting spoon fed shite from Sturgeon for the last 5 years whenever it’s party conference time.

 

What I’ve written you and the the rest of your rent a mob cult won’t like it but deep down when you turn the light of at night and roll over with a tear in your eye you know that what I’ve written is cold hard facts.

 

Peace and love to you, brother.

I'm not a Nationalist, you plank 

[Detournement]

I think UDI generally requires the support of the national bourgeoisie to have any international legitimacy. 

[Gordon EF]

20 minutes ago, Andre Drazen said:

They can't just "get on with it" though. They'll need to make sure it's legally binding. Otherwise the rest of the world will turn a blind eye. 

Not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence

The United Kingdom itself recognised Kosovo an an independent state the day after they unliterally declared independence.

Of course it's not ideal but realistically, it completely depends on international politics, not law. And basically, how childish people are willing to be about it. Whilst the bar certainly isn't high, you'd expect Westminster to be a bit more pragmatic and a little less childish than Serbia, well known internationally as arse holes.

[ArabianKnight]

9 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

If you mean by doing a UDI, yes.

I don't think that would be the case for many reasons. Why do you think they wouldn't? 

[strichener]

Just now, MixuFruit said:

I can't think of a UDI that has gone smoothly in my lifetime (maybe other than some post soviet states).

Rephrase that to Western economies and there is not a single example that I can think of.  The west provided legitimacy to the former Soviet states and would also be required if Scotland was to declare UDI.  We could also be barred from joining the UN with the UK veto.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

31 minutes ago, ArabianKnight said:

You aren't following this through very well let me spell it out for you. 

UDIs are problematic only when they aren't recognised and accepted by the international community. The basis of their acceptance is on democratic and legal grounds. No doubt Ad Lib will come along and correct me on this but if a party of government is elected on a specific mandate to hold a referendum in a legally binding and valid election then it is merely carrying out the wishes of the electorate. 

Just because one other part of a unitary state under which the first country is joined in a treaty says they can't doesn't make it so 

Especially when you look at things like the claim of right etc which affers sovereignty to the people rather than the parliament. 

Do you honestly think the world wouldn't accept Scotland as a sovereign independent country if it was shown that the government elected was carrying out the wishes of the people, I would think that the UN charter which specifically states nations have the right to self determination would be upheld in this instance. 

We're not talking about some tin pot regime proclaiming independence for Fucknowsistan, we're talking about a developed first world country asserting the sovereignty of its people through due process and democracy. 

This is all true but it doesn't really mean much in international law.  Its possible we could follow a similar route to Kosovo but dubious, we are not in a similar position to them.  It has to be done legally, the UK govt will not agree to a legal process, so it will have to go to court. 

That's the long and short of it, and any talk of any other avenue is really just hot air.   Unfortunately its going to require a court case, several, which will take 5, 10, 15 maybe 20 years.  Which will require another 1, 2, 3, 4 maybe 5 majorities in a system specifically designed to prevent them.  That's why I get pretty downbeat on our chances.

The simple fact is England cannot possibly afford to lose our resources.  Its out of the question for them, so they will do everything they can to keep them, and this is the way it will go.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

Rephrase that to Western economies and there is not a single example that I can think of.  The west provided legitimacy to the former Soviet states and would also be required if Scotland was to declare UDI.  We could also be barred from joining the UN with the UK veto.

That's not true, the UK has a veto on the Security Council that's all.  It can veto any decision of UNSC, that's nothing to do with UN membership.

[GordonS]

33 minutes ago, ArabianKnight said:

Do you honestly think the world wouldn't accept Scotland as a sovereign independent country if it was shown that the government elected was carrying out the wishes of the people

Definitely. Look at Catalonia. There's no chance of anyone recognising the secession of part of a major western power, apart from maybe a country in it for the lols like North Korea. Maybe if there was like 90% support, human rights abuses, that kind of thing. But in any sort of foreseeable future I don't think anyone would recognise a Scottish UDI - and I don't think a majority of Scots would agree with it anyway. 

[ArabianKnight]

Tbh I'm not sure this sort of process would be considered a UDI?

Would it actually be seen as one, government mandated to hold a referendum through legal and binding election, holds referendum and wins independence and then opens negotiations I'm assuming? 

[Whitburn Vale]

4 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

This is all true but it doesn't really mean much in international law.  Its possible we could follow a similar route to Kosovo but dubious, we are not in a similar position to them.  It has to be done legally, the UK govt will not agree to a legal process, so it will have to go to court. 

That's the long and short of it, and any talk of any other avenue is really just hot air.   Unfortunately its going to require a court case, several, which will take 5, 10, 15 maybe 20 years.  Which will require another 1, 2, 3, 4 maybe 5 majorities in a system specifically designed to prevent them.  That's why I get pretty downbeat on our chances.

The simple fact is England cannot possibly afford to lose our resources.  Its out of the question for them, so they will do everything they can to keep them, and this is the way it will go.

This ^^^^^

Bang on by the guvnor,

Once our resources are used up then it's a big bye bye fae saxonland tae caledonia and cymru......Job Done..

[Gordon EF]

10 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

This is all true but it doesn't really mean much in international law. 

Which international law? 

[strichener]

9 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

That's not true, the UK has a veto on the Security Council that's all.  It can veto any decision of UNSC, that's nothing to do with UN membership.

No you are incorrect.  This is taken directly from the UN website.

Quote

The procedure is briefly as follows:

 

The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.

The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.

So yes the UK would have a veto.

UN Process for membership

[NotThePars]

Why would any country in the West with any sort of substantial separatist movement recognise any UDI from Scotland lol? I think the argument that Spain would veto our entry into the EU is much weaker since Brexit but if Scotland breaks away ‘illegally’ from the UK then why would Spain be sound with that?

International law means jack shit if it isn’t expedient to follow it for most countries.

It’s all moot anyway because the SNP are far too cautious to do it unless it’s fully legally sanctioned, baby!

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

10 minutes ago, Whitburn Vale said:

This ^^^^^

Bang on by the guvnor,

Once our resources are used up then it's a big bye bye fae saxonland tae caledonia and cymru......Job Done..

I don't even think its that.  It will never be bye, cause by then they will also want our land.  Look at the projections for how maps of Britain will look in the future.  Half of England is under water, and we are not too bad. 

They will want our land too, and before that they want our water next.  And renewable energy, like 80% of the UK's recently published plan to be carbon neutral by when was it 2050 or something is renewable energy based in Scotland.  They have plans for both a superhighway channeling power south from here and also like an aqueduct channeling water.