Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens

[Duries Air Freshener]

10 minutes ago, Zern said:

On this matter the Scotland Act is quite clear, devolved powers sit with Holyrood. They pass legislation on the back of those powers; the ranked choice vote in council elections being another example of how that occurs. This becomes UK law, but localised to Scotland. Now we also have the referendums act of 2020., a change that pertains to Scotland and is now UK legislation.

There could be an unlikely scenario where a desperate Mr Johnson whips his current lot of MPs to create a specific piece of legislation banning referendums in Scotland only, this happening after it has passed through Holyrood.

In that case there would be no referendum held. The legislation would be effectively annulled.

Don't see that happening though.

Devolved powers do indeed sit with Holyrood, but having another PartiRef is not a devolved issue.

it’s not a case of Johnson having to create legislation to ban one taking place, but the power just doesn’t lie with the MSPs in the first place.

if they held such an illegal referendum, it would be pointless.

Sturgeon’s carrot dangling still works it seems.  A fine vegetable, cultivated as a tribute to the Glorious King William III.

[Zern]

6 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Devolved powers do indeed sit with Holyrood, but having another PartiRef is not a devolved issue.

it’s not a case of Johnson having to create legislation to ban one taking place, but the power just doesn’t lie with the MSPs in the first place.

if they held such an illegal referendum, it would be pointless.

Sturgeon’s carrot dangling still works it seems.  A fine vegetable, cultivated as a tribute to the Glorious King William III.

Well i'm glad you at least acknowledge that devolution does indeed grant Holyrood certain powers and responsibilities. If they lack the power on referendums then how come the Referendums Act (Scotland) was able to pass into UK law in 2020?

[lichtgilphead]

Perhaps if DAF used more correct terminology, it would be easier to understand his unsupported assertions.

As an example, when Boris Johnson tried to prorogue the UK parliament, the UK supreme court didn't describe his actions as "illegal"

Lord Hale stated "“This court has … concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty [ to suspend parliament] was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect."

If the Scottish Parliament passed an act to hold a Indyref & if (and this the big if) the UK supreme court found that this Act of the Scottish Parliament was ultra vires (outwith their powers), then the act would also be considered to be "unlawful, void and of no effect"

In those circumstances, the vote would not be held, so none of us would be voting in an "illegal referendum"

The only other circumstance in which the vote would be unlawful would be if (after losing in the Supreme Court), the UK Government passed an act to make it illegal for the Scottish Government to hold referendums. This, of course, would conclusively demonstrate that so-called Union of Equals was no such thing, and might even hasten the break-up.

As an aside, have any of the Yoons on here ever provided a coherent argument why the power to hold a referendum "lies with the MPs we elect to the House of Commons"? Whilst I would agree that UK MP's can hold an advisory referendum in any part of the UK under the UK's current system of Government, can any Yoon point me to the provision that forbids the Scottish Government from holding an advisory referendum in Scotland?

Over to you, Yoons...

[Duries Air Freshener]

20 minutes ago, Zern said:

Well i'm glad you at least acknowledge that devolution does indeed grant Holyrood certain powers and responsibilities. If they lack the power on referendums then how come the Referendums Act (Scotland) was able to pass into UK law in 2020?

Of course, Holyrood has the power to legislate on devolved issues,

Referenda to split up the country is not a devolved issue. 

The Referendums Act (Scotland) 2020 only allows Holyrood to legislate on aspects of the running of a referendum, but the power to declare one lies with our MPs in the House of Commons.

Providing they can drag themselves away from porn!

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Of course, Holyrood has the power to legislate on devolved issues,

Referenda to split up the country is not a devolved issue. 

The Referendums Act (Scotland) 2020 only allows Holyrood to legislate on aspects of the running of a referendum, but the power to declare one lies with our MPs in the House of Commons.

Providing they can drag themselves away from porn!

The referendum will not (in itself) split up the UK. If Scotland voted "yes" in the ScotGov's referendum, further legislation would be required to implement the referendum result. 

That implementing legislation would have to be passed by Westminster, as the constitution is not a devolved issue. 

Try again.

[Duries Air Freshener]

28 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

The referendum will not (in itself) split up the UK. If Scotland voted "yes" in the ScotGov's referendum, further legislation would be required to implement the referendum result. 

That implementing legislation would have to be passed by Westminster, as the constitution is not a devolved issue. 

Try again.

You're splitting hairs

OK, the referendum won't in itself split up the country, but it's part of the process.

Michty me!

Edited April 28, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener

[Zern]

13 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Of course, Holyrood has the power to legislate on devolved issues,

Referenda to split up the country is not a devolved issue. 

The Referendums Act (Scotland) 2020 only allows Holyrood to legislate on aspects of the running of a referendum, but the power to declare one lies with our MPs in the House of Commons.

Providing they can drag themselves away from porn!

The Referendums Act does deals with referendums declared by the Scottish Parliament.

Quote

This Act sets of a framework under Scots Law for the administration and governing of referendums in Scotland on any issue determined by the Scottish Parliament.

 

[lichtgilphead]

4 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

You're splitting hairs

OK, the referendum won't in itself split up the country, but it's of the process.

Michty me!

So, we finally agree then? The referendum itself is not unlawful, and you and I will vote differently when it happens?

[Zern]

Not illegal. Not unlawful.

Those pesky Green/SNP MSPs are being very un-Tory.

[Duries Air Freshener]

34 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Perhaps if DAF used more correct terminology, it would be easier to understand his unsupported assertions.

As an example, when Boris Johnson tried to prorogue the UK parliament, the UK supreme court didn't describe his actions as "illegal"

Lord Hale stated "“This court has … concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty [ to suspend parliament] was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect."

If the Scottish Parliament passed an act to hold a Indyref & if (and this the big if) the UK supreme court found that this Act of the Scottish Parliament was ultra vires (outwith their powers), then the act would also be considered to be "unlawful, void and of no effect"

In those circumstances, the vote would not be held, so none of us would be voting in an "illegal referendum"

The only other circumstance in which the vote would be unlawful would be if (after losing in the Supreme Court), the UK Government passed an act to make it illegal for the Scottish Government to hold referendums. This, of course, would conclusively demonstrate that so-called Union of Equals was no such thing, and might even hasten the break-up.

As an aside, have any of the Yoons on here ever provided a coherent argument why the power to hold a referendum "lies with the MPs we elect to the House of Commons"? Whilst I would agree that UK MP's can hold an advisory referendum in any part of the UK under the UK's current system of Government, can any Yoon point me to the provision that forbids the Scottish Government from holding an advisory referendum in Scotland?

Over to you, Yoons...

I don't think we can equate the Boris Johnson proroguing of parliament situation with holding an illegal referendum on partition.

If the Scottish maladministration were to hold another referendum without it having been granted by Westminster, then they'd need support of councils, up and down Scotland, many of who just wouldn't be having it.  Whilst in theory it would merely be unlawful and pointless, in reality it would indeed be illegal.  It would be incredibly easy for our MPs to pass legislation against, before it's held.

Anyway, we're talking in hypotheticals here.  There won't be one, not even an illegal one.

It wouldn't demonstrate that we don't have a union of equals either.  Of course we do.

[Duries Air Freshener]

10 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

So, we finally agree then? The referendum itself is not unlawful, and you and I will vote differently when it happens?

No, we don't agree.

Any referendum held would indeed be illegal, because legislation would be passed by our MPs to stop it.

It's not going to happen anyway, so there'll be no need for you and I to vote differently 

[Zern]

Not going to happen and if it does we'll legislate against it?

So why didn't that occur to the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020?

It does give the power to declare a referendum to the parliament, on any subject being drug policy, defence or even independence. Contrary to what you've been saying @Duries Air Freshener

[Duries Air Freshener]

2 minutes ago, Zern said:

Not going to happen and if it does we'll legislate against it?

So why didn't that occur to the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020?

It does give the power to declare a referendum to the parliament, on any subject being drug policy, defence or even independence. Contrary to what you've been saying @Duries Air Freshener

Correct, it won't happen.  If they did try to hold it, our MPs would legislate against it and any referendum forced upon the people will therefore be illegal.

The passing of the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 was not a declaration to hold a referendum on partition, nor does it legally allow one, for the reasons I've outlined.

[welshbairn]

Just now, Duries Air Freshener said:

Correct, it won't happen.  If they did try to hold it, our MPs would legislate against it and any referendum forced upon the people will therefore be illegal.

The passing of the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 was not a declaration to hold a referendum on partition, nor does it legally allow one, for the reasons I've outlined.

Why would Westminster vote to block it, or even introduce legislation to try to? It would only be advisory, as the the Brexit one was. It would make them look afraid of public opinion in Scotland, not something a manly man like Boris would like to show with a general election incoming.

[lichtgilphead]

5 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

I don't think we can equate the Boris Johnson proroguing of parliament situation with holding an illegal referendum on partition.

If the Scottish maladministration were to hold another referendum without it having been granted by Westminster, then they'd need support of councils, up and down Scotland, many of who just wouldn't be having it.  Whilst in theory it would merely be unlawful and pointless, in reality it would indeed be illegal.  It would be incredibly easy for our MPs to pass legislation against, before it's held.

Anyway, we're talking in hypotheticals here.  There won't be one, not even an illegal one.

It wouldn't demonstrate that we don't have a union of equals either.  Of course we do.

Why not? He passed an Order in Council, and the Supreme Court struck it down. That's exactly what you hope will happen if the Scottish Government pass a Act to hold Indyref 2.

If the Supreme Court holds that passing that Act is within the powers of the Scottish Government, then the Councils will be under a duty to facilitate the referendum. If they refused, they would be subject to legal sanctions. 

17 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

No, we don't agree.

Any referendum held would indeed be illegal, because legislation would be passed by our MPs to stop it.

It's not going to happen anyway, so there'll be no need for you and I to vote differently 

So, your new position is that Indyref 2 will only become illegal after you lose in court & WM intervenes. That's a pretty hypothetical position, and would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.

[lichtgilphead]

12 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

The passing of the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 was not a declaration to hold a referendum on partition, nor does it legally allow one, for the reasons I've outlined.

Can you remind us of these reasons please?

I thought that you were now arguing that the law would be changed retrospectively, and had accepted that holding an advisory referendum was not unlawful?

[Duries Air Freshener]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Why would Westminster vote to block it, or even introduce legislation to try to? It would only be advisory, as the the Brexit one was. It would make them look afraid of public opinion in Scotland, not something a manly man like Boris would like to show with a general election incoming.

Because Scots being forced into such a referendum would be morally wrong, and they couldn't just allow such an event to take place.  It would be disruptive, costly and divisive.

They shouldn't allow our countrymen and women, especially the Nats, to be led up the garden path, thinking it'd be some sort of binding referendum that would allow them to split away from the rest of the country, because you just know that's how they'd paint it.

It would allow grudge and grievance to be stoked up beyond belief.  Of course they'd have to clamp down on it, for moral reasons and also political/tactical ones.

It wouldn't make them look afraid of public opinion at all.  It'd make them look strong and decisive.

[carpetmonster]

1 minute ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

 

It wouldn't make them look afraid of public opinion at all.  It'd make them look strong and decisive.

 

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

It wouldn't make them look afraid of public opinion at all.  It'd make them look strong and decisive.

Like Madrid? 

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Because Scots being forced into such a referendum would be morally wrong,

Might I remind you that Scots voters elected a Scottish Government on a manifesto to hold a referendum? 

In what way are they being "forced" into this referendum, when a majority are in favour of holding one?