Scottish Indy Judgement Wednesday

[The Byre]

The Act of Union between England and Scotland 1706 was ostensibly supposed to be a voluntary union as it required both Scottish and English parliaments to ratify the Act of Union and it is the ability of the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum on this issue that is being judged by the Supreme Court and the judgment is to be announced on Wednesday.

Either way it can be used as a win for independence. If democracy is denied, that can act as a spur for others, not necessarily in the SNP or even those who are independence supporters, to say that’s not right. If there is a popular mandate to have a referendum, people should be given the choice.

But if the court comes back and says ‘no’, those who support the Union will regard this as a victory but in actual fact it changes the legal nature of the union.

In effect, the judges will be saying "Either the Act of Union was not freely entered into and Scotland must have permission for a referendum from the Prime Minister - or it was indeed freely entered into, but the union is no longer voluntary and if the Prime Minister refuses, it becomes mandatory and therefore can be imposed by force if necessary."

I do not think that the pro-union side has thought through the ramifications of this judgment - regardless of whichever way it goes.

The court could just say no, it’s reserved, you must get the agreement of the Prime Minister and Bang! goes the voluntary nature of the Union, or they could say "In an unwritten constitution that supports a voluntary union, governments must respect democracy."

Because the union was entered into by Scotland and England voluntarily, if the court decides that it is no longer voluntary, that makes this issue a purely political question.

 

[The Byre]

And there we have it - the union between Scotland and England is no longer voluntary. It can therefore be imposed by force if necessary.

 

[Newchodge]

And there we have it - the union between Scotland and England is no longer voluntary. It can therefore be imposed by force if necessary.

The Act of Union was entered into voluntarily by the Scottish and English Parliaments. Neiher of those things exist today. We have the United (sic) Kingdom Parliament at Westminster and in Scotland we have a devolved Scottish Parliament whose devolved powers are specified. The only bodies that could have dissolved the union are those that entered into it, and they don't exist any more. It must, therefore, be a decision of the UK Parliament.

Not a surprising decision, but it brings the prospect of Scottish independence a lot closer because of the perceived denial of democracy.

 

[The Byre]

The Act of Union was entered into voluntarily by the Scottish and English Parliaments. Neiher of those things exist today.

That was the central question answered by the SC. The Westminster Parliament is indeed the heir to the parliament and the then authority of the Crown, but the present Scottish Parliament is NOT the heir to the then autonomous Parliament of Scotland as it was prorogued sine die in 1707.

If Scotland gains independence in the future, the old (auld?) Parliament of Scotland could reconvene in a reconstituted form.

Not a surprising decision, but it brings the prospect of Scottish independence a lot closer because of the perceived denial of democracy.

It is now a purely political issue and the present Westminster government had better tread carefully, as they have hardly covered themselves in glory in the past 12 years! In fact, I cannot think of a single issue or task that they managed to get right - so we must assume that they will make a dog's breakfast of this issue as well.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

My understanding from many of my customers north of the border is that geographically the overwhelming majority of the country does not want independence, that the call for such comes from those living within the major cities?

 

[The Byre]

No - the polls more or less show a 50/50 split. The only demographic differences are not between country v. town but young v. old and white settlers (the English) v. Scots - though many English people now support the SNP, either because they identify as Scots or because they just prefer an independent Scotland.

It is the constitutional anomaly that is interesting - Scotland is in a 'voluntary' union that it cannot leave without permission from a 'foreign' parliament that it is also a member of but over which it can never hope to control or even influence in any meaningful way. That is the same constitutional position of the satellite Soviet states until the break-up of the Soviet Union. Hardly a comforting thought!

There was an amusing parallel with the questioning of the hapless Braverman in that committee meeting by the Home Affairs Committee. She had no answer to the obvious question - how does a refugee in Calais or anywhere else come to that, apply legally for asylum in the UK?

Answer - they must come here legally. But of course, they cannot come here legally as there is no legal route by which they can reach the UK!

Again and again, the UK comes up against several anomalies born of traditions that no longer work in modern society with a population of nearly 70m -

1. A lack of a register of who lives where. This is a very Anglo-Saxon thing and the US has a similar problem. Children can disappear from school, known criminals can move and tell no one, debtors can abscond their debts and we can do little to trace where they have gone.

2. People can change their names at will and even get driving licenses and passports in that new name.

3. Governmental data is siloed. The DVLA does not tell the Passport Office where someone is located. The military does not tell the police about its soldiers unless specifically asked - and visa-versa and even within regiments, a soldier absconding from one regiment can reenlist in another and (unless someone in Infantry & Manning Records notices by chance) no one would be any the wiser! Councils do not tell central government where its rate-payers are. Consulates do not inform the police of the whereabouts of known criminals outside the UK - how could they? The police do not inform them either!

Time for a written constitution perhaps?

 

[japancool]

over which it can never hope to control or even influence in any meaningful way.

Not even by having a Scotsman elected as Prime Minister?

 

[Mr D]

No - the polls more or less show a 50/50 split. The only demographic differences are not between country v. town but young v. old and white settlers (the English) v. Scots - though many English people now support the SNP, either because they identify as Scots or because they just prefer an independent Scotland.

It is the constitutional anomaly that is interesting - Scotland is in a 'voluntary' union that it cannot leave without permission from a 'foreign' parliament that it is also a member of but over which it can never hope to control or even influence in any meaningful way. That is the same constitutional position of the satellite Soviet states until the break-up of the Soviet Union. Hardly a comforting thought!

There was an amusing parallel with the questioning of the hapless Braverman in that committee meeting by the Home Affairs Committee. She had no answer to the obvious question - how does a refugee in Calais or anywhere else come to that, apply legally for asylum in the UK?

Answer - they must come here legally. But of course, they cannot come here legally as there is no legal route by which they can reach the UK!

Again and again, the UK comes up against several anomalies born of traditions that no longer work in modern society with a population of nearly 70m -

1. A lack of a register of who lives where. This is a very Anglo-Saxon thing and the US has a similar problem. Children can disappear from school, known criminals can move and tell no one, debtors can abscond their debts and we can do little to trace where they have gone.

2. People can change their names at will and even get driving licenses and passports in that new name.

3. Governmental data is siloed. The DVLA does not tell the Passport Office where someone is located. The military does not tell the police about its soldiers unless specifically asked - and visa-versa and even within regiments, a soldier absconding from one regiment can reenlist in another and (unless someone in Infantry & Manning Records notices by chance) no one would be any the wiser! Councils do not tell central government where its rate-payers are. Consulates do not inform the police of the whereabouts of known criminals outside the UK - how could they? The police do not inform them either!

Time for a written constitution perhaps?

Scotland will become independent eventually.

How they do it and when are most important. Done badly and all the empty promises will cause problems. Done well ..... can't see that happening for a decade or two.
Not helped by the SNP fantasy about assets they don't own.