Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens

[git-intae-thum]

The independence referendum in 2014 was a triumph of democracy. It was a vote over a contentious issue, held by and large trouble free and produced a result respected by all sides.

Since then the Scottish electorate has handed repeated overwhelming mandates both at Westminster and Holyrood to parties who hold a commitment to a second referendum.  

Therefore, when Scotland holds its second independence referendum, regardless of Tory approval, it will be with solid democratic validity.

Democracy did not end in 2014.

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by git-intae-thum
Typo

[Zern]

I'm honestly struggling to recall the last time the First Minister talked about a section 30 request, it's been at least a few years.

Almost as if some legislation passed that made it unnecessary.

[Duries Air Freshener]

11 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. You admire Sturgeon so much that you believe that her law degree is somehow of higher importance than the UK's senior judges. That's an interesting take. Have you seen an advance copy of the legal advice that the Scottish Government have been required to disclose under FOI?

As far as I am aware, Sturgeon's position is that she would prefer a s.30 order, but intends to introduce legislation for Indyref 2 by the end of 2023 if the s.30 order still isn't forthcomig.

I'm still waiting for your reasoning why the proposed referendum is unlawful, though.

Oh aye I admire Sturgeon loads.. great lassie

The proposed referendum would be both unlawful and illegal because it wouldn't be sanctioned by the government, unless Johnson has a radical U-turn, which I can't see happening.  He has a clear mandate to say NO TO INDYREF2

If you can show me evidence that Holyrood can just declare a referendum, without a section 30, then please put up.  As it stands, all we've had is vague text from documentation that doesn't say that.

Also, why did Sturgeon not just call one when Nationalism was riding high in the polls?

No, I've not seen the legal advice however the fact they tried to keep it secret tells me it might not be too favourable from a Nationalist perspective.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener

[Duries Air Freshener]

11 hours ago, Zern said:

You have vacillated between claiming that they do not have any power at all, that it cannot happen to claiming that if it does... (which concedes that it can happen) MPs who have not mentioned 1 word of legislation will spring forth to thwart with as yet unknown legislation.

Next month the Scottish Parliament will propose legislation along with the question to be posed in the upcoming referendum. This will comply with the existing framework put place under the act of 2020.

vive la démocratie

I've never vacillated between those two stances at all Zern.  I'm unsure if you truly believe that or if you're making it up to win the argument.

My stance is that Westminster needs to grant a section 30.  No matter what bills or acts are passed within the Scottish Parliament, it still requires that section 30.

Otherwise the Nats could have just held one when you were high in the polls.

[Zern]

23 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

I've never vacillated between those two stances at all Zern.  I'm unsure if you truly believe that or if you're making it up to win the argument.

My stance is that Westminster needs to grant a section 30.  No matter what bills or acts are passed within the Scottish Parliament, it still requires that section 30.

Otherwise the Nats could have just held one when you were high in the polls.

You've swung between insisting it cannot, will not and shall not happen to saying that when it happens MPs would then legislate to prevent it. Those positions are contradictory. One says it is illegal the other says it is legal and would require active legislation render it illegal.

Now you are insisting that a section 30 is required. Which legislation requires this?

[Duries Air Freshener]

50 minutes ago, Zern said:

You've swung between insisting it cannot, will not and shall not happen to saying that when it happens MPs would then legislate to prevent it. Those positions are contradictory. One says it is illegal the other says it is legal and would require active legislation render it illegal.

Now you are insisting that a section 30 is required. Which legislation requires this?

Ive not swayed between anything   I’ve been consistent throughout.

I’ve not cited legislation and don’t have it at my fingertips.

if you’re able to prove a section 30 is not required then go ahead, but I’ve saw no proof thus far.

Again, why did Sturgeon not just have a referendum when you were high in the polls If it’s that easy? 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener

[Zern]

36 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Ive not swayed between anything   I’ve been consistent throughout.

I’ve not cited legislation and don’t have it at my fingertips.

if you’re able to prove a section 30 is not required then go ahead, but I’ve saw no proof thus far.

Again, why did Sturgeon not just have a referendum when you were high in the polls If it’s that easy? 

Your inability to cite legislation damages your claims of a referendum being illegal or unlawful. If you can't even gesture towards something amiss it renders your opinion void. You dislike the idea of a referendum, or you are against it. That is valid. It doesn't make a referendum any less legal or lawful especially when it comes under UK law.

The legislation i pointed towards sets out the conditions for how a referendum may be declared by the Scottish Parliament. There is no mention of a section 30 in there because it is not required or necessary.

That is why i asked you to cite something would make it a requirement.

As for the timing? 2023 seems about right to me.

[Duries Air Freshener]

5 hours ago, Zern said:

Your inability to cite legislation damages your claims of a referendum being illegal or unlawful. If you can't even gesture towards something amiss it renders your opinion void. You dislike the idea of a referendum, or you are against it. That is valid. It doesn't make a referendum any less legal or lawful especially when it comes under UK law.

The legislation i pointed towards sets out the conditions for how a referendum may be declared by the Scottish Parliament. There is no mention of a section 30 in there because it is not required or necessary.

That is why i asked you to cite something would make it a requirement.

As for the timing? 2023 seems about right to me.

 

Not at all.

My inability to cite legislation doesn't change my opinion.  I don't go through documents with a fine toothed comb.  You haven't provided anything that contradicts what I'm saying though.  The Referendums Act not mentioning a section 30 doesn't mean they don't need to ask for one.

Sturgeon kens it

Racist Humza kens it

You ken it

I ken it

Barrhead Boy kens it

Peter A Bell kens it

Patsy Kensit

I do watch/listen to Nat podcasts though, and they DO think they need the approval of Boris, unless they fight in the courts and win.  No doubt you'll ask me for proof of this too, but I'm not about to trawl through them.

Again, why did Sturgeon not just have one when you were riding sky high in the polls?  If the Referendums (Scotland) Act was so powerful then you could be sitting pretty with an Independent Scotland by now. 

[BFTD]

Pretty safe to say that, even if the divine Margaret reanimated and gave it her blessing, the Unionist strategy will be to dingy the next referendum so that whoever's in cherge in Westminster can declare the result invalid.

Checkmate, Natters! Back in your box, etc.

[lichtgilphead]

6 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

The proposed referendum would be both unlawful and illegal because it wouldn't be sanctioned by the government, 

Repeating something over & over doesn't make it true. We're still waiting for your evidence.

6 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Johnson...  ...has a clear mandate to say NO TO INDYREF2

How do 31 MSP's (out of 129) constitute a mandate?

6 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

If you can show me evidence that Holyrood can just declare a referendum, without a section 30, then please put up.  As it stands, all we've had is vague text from documentation that doesn't say that.

Even though you've produced nothing to back up your unfounded assertions, you want me to provide proof? You have a cheek!

As I've said all along, it will take the supreme court to decide the legality of the Indyref act (assuming that someone objects to the legality, which I would suggest is pretty certain.)

My expectation would be that the defendant's case would go something like:

1) In UK law, if something isn't forbidden in law, then it is legal

2) Sections 29 & 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 set out the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Sections 29(1) and 29(2) are the main bits to look at.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/29

3) Schedule 4 sets out legislation that the Scottish Government cannot modify https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/4

4) Schedule 5 sets out reserved matters https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

As the Indyref Act will not breach s.29, s.30, schedule 4 or schedule 5 (as it will only be an advisory referendum), it will be legal. 

I know that you won't bother to check my reasoning, because that would involve doing some research & posting some evidence to refute it. I'm not sure that you have the legal skills to even try. 

8 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Also, why did Sturgeon not just call one when Nationalism was riding high in the polls?

No, I've not seen the legal advice however the fact they tried to keep it secret tells me it might not be too favourable from a Nationalist perspective.

I'm sure that she would cite brexit & lockdown. As I've said before, I'll most likely resign from the snp if the indyref bill is delayed past 2023. It won't stop me supporting independence though.

With regard to the legal advice, the usual principle is that lawyer/client discussions are private. The Ombudsman has decided that in this case, the public interest test overrules that. It will be interesting to see if the same principle applies next time Westminster drags us into an illegal war. 

However, as 'he who pays the piper calls the tune', the lawyers opinion is highly unlikely to say 'NO TO INDYREF2.' The best you can hope for are some caveats, which the Yoon press will try to make the most of.

[Zern]

27 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

 

Not at all.

My inability to cite legislation doesn't change my opinion.  I don't go through documents with a fine toothed comb.  You haven't provided anything that contradicts what I'm saying though.  The Referendums Act not mentioning a section 30 doesn't mean they don't need to ask for one.

Sturgeon kens it

Racist Humza kens it

You ken it

I ken it

Barrhead Boy kens it

Peter A Bell kens it

Patsy Kensit

I do watch/listen to Nat podcasts though, and they DO think they need the approval of Boris, unless they fight in the courts and win.  No doubt you'll ask me for proof of this too, but I'm not about to trawl through them.

Again, why did Sturgeon not just have one when you were riding sky high in the polls?  If the Referendums (Scotland) Act was so powerful then you could be sitting pretty with an Independent Scotland by now. 

Your inability to cite anything may not change your opinion, but it does make your opinion uninformed. I can dismiss it on that basis alone. Where it becomes dishonest is when you refuse to acknowledge that the evidence given to you somehow doesn't meet your specifications for UK law. Again you are mistaken, and what slight you may feel at them overlooking your consultation on the matter is of little concern to those who gave it Royal Assent.

Sturgeon has stated their intent to hold an independence referendum in 2023, that is because they plan to legislate for one, using the Referendums Act as the framework.

All nice and legal.

 

[Zern]

5 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

As I've said all along, it will take the supreme court to decide the legality of the Indyref act (assuming that someone objects to the legality, which I would suggest is pretty certain.)

My expectation would be that the defendant's case would go something like:

1) In UK law, if something isn't forbidden in law, then it is legal

2) Sections 29 & 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 set out the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Sections 29(1) and 29(2) are the main bits to look at.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/29

3) Schedule 4 sets out legislation that the Scottish Government cannot modify https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/4

4) Schedule 5 sets out reserved matters https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

As the Indyref Act will not breach s.29, s.30, schedule 4 or schedule 5 (as it will only be an advisory referendum), it will be legal. 

I know that you won't bother to check my reasoning, because that would involve doing some research & posting some evidence to refute it. I'm not sure that you have the legal skills to even try. 

Not a bad summation. It's always assumed that the UK Government will object, but it is always skimmed over that there does need to be a firm basis for objecting to legislation drafted and passed under existing UK law. Political disagreements generally don't stand up to legal scrutiny.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The unionists keep telling us that there is no majority for independence yet are not willing to put that opinion to a democratic vote.

Why are they so frightened?

[Duries Air Freshener]

3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The unionists keep telling us that there is no majority for independence yet are not willing to put that opinion to a democratic vote.

Why are they so frightened?
 

Why is Sturgeon so frightened to hold one?

According to Lichty and Zern they can just declare one no problem.

I’m surprised we’ve not had a few!

[Ad Lib]

On 28/04/2022 at 18:48, welshbairn said:

Is there any law that bars the Scottish Government holding a referendum on anything it likes? There might a question on whether it carries any constitutional weight with Westminster, but I haven't heard that merely holding one within Scotland is a reserved matter. @Ad Lib ? 

Whether it’s binding or not is irrelevant.

What matters is whether the legislation “relates to” a reserved matter.

When assessing that you “have regard to its purpose” taking into account the effects “in all the circumstances”.

The balance of legal opinion is now that an independence referendum would be unlawful in the absence of legal cover from the Westminster Parliament. Most of the academics who said it was an open question last time now think the law isn’t on the Scottish Government’s side. Case law since 2012 hasn’t helped the more “generous” interpretation.

For more information, read this (excellent) briefing from one of my colleagues. Some may have beef with him but this paper was peer reviewed (a) by me and (b) by a prominent pro-independence legal academic so you can trust it is impartial…

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Whether it’s binding or not is irrelevant.

What matters is whether the legislation “relates to” a reserved matter.

When assessing that you “have regard to its purpose” taking into account the effects “in all the circumstances”.

The balance of legal opinion is now that an independence referendum would be unlawful in the absence of legal cover from the Westminster Parliament. Most of the academics who said it was an open question last time now think the law isn’t on the Scottish Government’s side. Case law since 2012 hasn’t helped the more “generous” interpretation.

For more information, read this (excellent) briefing from one of my colleagues. Some may have beef with him but this paper was peer reviewed (a) by me and (b) by a prominent pro-independence legal academic so you can trust it is impartial…

Before retiring with that link with a stiff glass of brandy and a spliff, is there any legal reason that the SG can't commission a poll that covers the whole population of voting age, rather than a small sample. on any subject it chooses?

[Ad Lib]

Of interest will be this piece from Professor Stephen Tierney. In 2012 he was the prominent lead of a group of Scottish legal academics who said that the legality of an independence referendum (absent a section 30 Order) was an “open question”.

He now thinks it would be clearly ultra vires. So does Aileen McHarg and so does Chris McCorkindale (all three part of the original group who said it was an open question).

Obviously this will come down to what a court actually says, but:

(a) the signs on a generous interpretation, especially in Lord Reed’s court, is not good (he was pretty scathing of “generous” interpretations in the recent UNCRC Bill Reference)

(b) even if a Bill doesn’t get referred to the UK Supreme Court (and it totally would be) the Scottish courts hinted that they were unsympathetic to the arguments in the Keatings case.

My own view for some time now was that the argument was closed off when the UK Supreme Court adopted a plain conception of “purpose” in the Imperial Tobacco v Lord Advocate case in 2013.

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Before retiring with that link with a stiff glass of brandy and a spliff, is there any legal reason that the SG can't commission a poll that covers the whole population of voting age, rather than a small sample. on any subject it chooses?

It depends on what you mean by “commission a poll”.

If it involves the spending of public money, it needs legal, and probably legislative, authority.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Ad Lib said:

If it involves the spending of public money, it needs legal, and probably legislative, authority.

Authority from Westminster you mean? 

[Ad Lib]

16 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Authority from Westminster you mean? 

My point is that if you still need legislation, the Scottish Parliament can only pass it in relation to things within its competence.

So it doesn't get around any problem that an Indyref Bill wouldn't.