When will indyref2 happen?

[1320Lichtie]

It's so sad that so many people regardless of their views on the EU ref are happy to see Scotlands parliament have absolutely zero say and to be overruled.

[emoji20]

This is why indyref2 must happen. And this time I hope the SNP have done their homework in regards to the economic situation and kept a big fucking diary of what's happened since the last one.

[Bishop Briggs]

1 minute ago, AUFC90 said:

Refusing to agree to a democratic vote by the scottish parliament will only push more to yes that's why it wont happen and that's why it wont happen. I would fucking love it if it did but it won't.

The Tories were never part of the no campaign......there's a very good reason for that.

For IndyRef2 to be legally binding, Westminster must pass another Referendum Act. With one Tory MP in Scotland, the hapless  ex-SDP member Mundell, May hasn't got anything to gain. That's why, sadly, it won't happen.

It's telling that May has not responded publicly to Sturgeon's threats and EU policy paper. She's driven by personal ambition, vanity and revenge. Michael Gove is her most prominent victim to date. Zac Goldsmith was just left to his political suicide. Her response to Sturgeon, when it comes, could be vicious. 

[Bishop Briggs]

7 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

It's so sad that so many people regardless of their views on the EU ref are happy to see Scotlands parliament have absolutely zero say and to be overruled.

This is why indyref2 must happen. And this time I hope the SNP have done their homework in regards to the economic situation and kept a big fucking diary of what's happened since the last one.

Like it or not, that's the legal reality when power is devolved from Westminster. Under the devolution legislation, Holyrood has no say on foreign or EU policy. The Sewel Commission agreement has no legal status. The result was just a Memorandum of Understanding.

[AUFC90]

Just now, Bishop Briggs said:

For IndyRef2 to be legally binding, Westminster must pass another Referendum Act. With one Tory MP in Scotland, the hapless  ex-SDP member Mundell, May hasn't got anything to gain. That's why, sadly, it won't happen.

It's telling that May has not responded publicly to Sturgeon's threats and EU policy paper. She's driven by personal ambition, vanity and revenge. Michael Gove is her most prominent victim to date. Zac Goldsmith was just left to his political suicide. Her response to Sturgeon, when it comes, could be vicious. 

You're a fucking clown if you think May will block it to be quite frank. There was only one Torie seat the last time. Ruth would be as well packing her clown contingent of MSPs into a cardboard box and disappearing. 

 

If there's no chance of a referendum in this parliament then i don't know why we are even discussing it at all, us ,the media, anyone, pointless if you ask me, why talk about a referendum at all when Bishop Briggs assures us there wont be one ? Nae bother 

[AUFC90]

1 minute ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Like it or not, that's the legal reality when power is devolved from Westminster. Under the devolution legislation, Holyrood has no say on foreign or EU policy. The Sewel Commission agreement has no legal status. The result was just a Memorandum of Understanding.

We know this mate, you're trying to come across as intelligent by reciting shit that's been on the news all day. What it does do is undermine various unionist arguments. Yes voters have known since day dot that Holyrood isn't sovereign, we don't need you to educate us. Thanks anyway.

[Bishop Briggs]

Just now, AUFC90 said:

You're a fucking clown if you think May will block it to be quite frank. There was only one Torie seat the last time. Ruth would be as well packing her clown contingent of MSPs into a cardboard box and disappearing. 

 

If there's no chance of a referendum in this parliament then i don't know why we are even discussing it at all, us ,the media, anyone, pointless if you ask me, why talk about a referendum at all when Bishop Briggs assures us there wont be one ? Nae bother 

I'm not saying that at all. It's possible, even likely, that the Scottish Government will hold a second referendum in 2018/19. My point is that it would need another Referendum Act passed at Westminster to have legal standing. Then there is the issue of the independence deal. 

[AUFC90]

2 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

I'm not saying that at all. It's possible, even likely, that the Scottish Government will hold a second referendum in 2018/19. My point is that it would need another Referendum Act passed at Westminster to have legal standing. Then there is the issue of the independence deal. 

How can it be possible to hold a legal referendum, if as you say, May will never allow it to be legal ?  you're all over the place and I'm off to my bed, bore someone else with your foresight. 

[Bishop Briggs]

3 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:

We know this mate, you're trying to come across as intelligent by reciting shit that's been on the news all day. What it does do is undermine various unionist arguments. Yes voters have known since day dot that Holyrood isn't sovereign, we don't need you to educate us. Thanks anyway.

Try telling that to the First Minister. Sturgeon claimed that today's Supreme Court ruling was in breach of the Sewel Commission agreement. It only affected devolved matters, not reserved powers such as foreign policy. 

[williemillersmoustache]

2 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Sturgeon claimed that today's Supreme Court ruling was in breach of the Sewel Commission agreement. 

What words think you mean these do?

[Bishop Briggs]

Just now, AUFC90 said:

How can it be possible to hold a legal referendum, if as you say, May will never allow it to be legal ?  you're all over the place and I'm off to my bed, bore someone else with your foresight. 

It's very simple. The Scottish Government can hold another independence referendum without Westminster's consent. It would need a second UK Referendum Act, passed at Westminster, to make it legally binding. Without such an Act, May and her Government have no obligation to respect the result or enter into independence negotiations. 

[Bishop Briggs]

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

What words think you mean these do?

WFT are you on about? 

[Shades75]

8 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Try telling that to the First Minister. Sturgeon claimed that today's Supreme Court ruling was in breach of the Sewel Commission agreement. It only affected devolved matters, not reserved powers such as foreign policy. 

This is what she said;

 

We are obviously disappointed with the Supreme Court's ruling in respect of the devolved administrations and the legal enforceability of the Sewel Convention.
 

It is now crystal clear that the promises made to Scotland by the UK Government about the Sewel Convention and the importance of embedding it in statute were not worth the paper they were written on.
 

Although the court has concluded that the UK Government is not legally obliged to consult the devolved administrations, there remains a clear political obligation to do so. Indeed, the court itself notes the importance of Sewel as a political convention.

 

That doesn't say that the judgement was in breach of the Sewel Commission.

[williemillersmoustache]

 

 

I'm suggesting what you wrote was word salad and as a jovial twist I rearranged my response. 

Edited January 24, 2017 by williemillersmoustache

[Bishop Briggs]

4 minutes ago, Shades75 said:

This is what she said;

 

We are obviously disappointed with the Supreme Court's ruling in respect of the devolved administrations and the legal enforceability of the Sewel Convention.
 

It is now crystal clear that the promises made to Scotland by the UK Government about the Sewel Convention and the importance of embedding it in statute were not worth the paper they were written on.
 

Although the court has concluded that the UK Government is not legally obliged to consult the devolved administrations, there remains a clear political obligation to do so. Indeed, the court itself notes the importance of Sewel as a political convention.

 

That doesn't say that the judgement was in breach of the Sewel Commission.

The Sewel Commission only applies to devolved matters. Foreign and trade policy, including EU membership, is not not devolved so it does not apply to Brexit. It's therefore irrelevant to the Supreme Court ruling. In any case, AFAIK there was no promise to embed the Sewel Commission agreement (1998) in statute. 

[RedRob72]

It's starting to become Scotland's worst kept secret that indyref2 will take place in the Autumn of 2018.
So much for the yoons on here predicting "It won't be happening anytime soon, if ever"   

Your inside knowledge is impressive!! In the real world however, still no Indy2 vote until Brexit is finalised, how can the UK Gov juggle both incredibly complex transactions at the same time. Set different scenarios on each constituent part of EU negotiations, to cover U.K. with Scotland on board or U.K. minus an independent Scotland!??
Can't see it somehow.

[Shades75]

25 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

The Sewel Commission only applies to devolved matters. Foreign and trade policy, including EU membership, is not not devolved so it does not apply to Brexit. It's therefore irrelevant to the Supreme Court ruling. In any case, AFAIK there was no promise to embed the Sewel Commission agreement (1998) in statute. 

The Smith commission used the exact words;

"The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing"

 

[DublinMagyar]

Your inside knowledge is impressive!! In the real world however, still no Indy2 vote until Brexit is finalised, how can the UK Gov juggle both incredibly complex transactions at the same time. Set different scenarios on each constituent part of EU negotiations, to cover U.K. with Scotland on board or U.K. minus an independent Scotland!??

Can't see it somehow.

Would it not be a damn site easier for May if Scotland just fucked off out of it?

[git-intae-thum]

1 hour ago, DublinMagyar said:

Would it not be a damn site easier for May if Scotland just fucked off out of it?

You know they wanit!

[Antlion]

7 hours ago, DublinMagyar said:

Would it not be a damn site easier for May if Scotland just fucked off out of it?

It would seem so, but it's such an unequal union that her attitude is closer to colonial than it is unionist. This is pretty much betrayed by the fact that she would never accept the UK or England being in Scotland's untenable position.

[philyerboots]