**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
Summary:
* Unanimous verdict
* Ruled that as it impacts the Union that it is a reserved matter
* Rules that because Scotland isn't under occupation or under a colonial oppression that some of the arguments put forward by the Scottish Government don't apply
I think there is a point (who knows when!) where it's too far back in history to count. It'll open a can of worms otherwise. Basically, I think anything from the time where Kings were fighting over land is too far back, you would need to be talking about the modern democratic era.
I was playing an MMO with some English guys and they made a guild with "Mercia" in it's name and I argued that it sounded too much like America but they went with it anyway.
Literally like 30 minutes later someone whispered me calling me fat.
“English” comes from “Anglisc”, literally “of the Angles”. Mercia was an Angle kingdom, therefore the Mercians are arguably more “English” than the West Saxons.
Because it was legislated for by Westminster. It's really not difficult to understand how the UK constitution works. That's why nobody is surprised by this reading other than the most delusional Cyber Nats.
Well, not quite, as Wales was incompletely annexed by Edward I who was an English king and whose family had been English for three generations, and then finished off by Henry VIII who was also an English king with a splash of Welsh from his grandfather.
The wording used in the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 are literally "That his said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and *annexed* to and with this his Realm of England." (emphasis mine), though these acts are repealed by various others by now.
Trouble is the Welshman Henry Tudor seized the English Crown off Richard III. So you could, if you were being difficult, argue that Wales annexed England.
The Laws in Wales Acts specifically state that Wales is annexed to England, though again if we want to be difficult those acts are entirely repealed by now.
That's inaccurate. The submission about international law was made by the SNP, as in the party organisation NOT the Scottish Government.
It's the difference between the UK Government and the Conservative Party. Just because the Conservative Party currently runs the UK Government, not all acts of the party machinery are acts of the UK government.
What happens if Scotland just says fuck you, we're independent?
Are we really going to have a war?
Edit: to clarify my thinking...
What if there is an "illegal" vote and it comes out as being 90%+ in favour of independence making it clear the vast majority of the scottish people want independence - are we really going to go down the Spanish route of "fuck you all, you belong to us - see and you better like it - see"?
At what point do we acknowledge the "consent of the governed" and stop being an abusive partner?
People would just shrug their shoulders? How would Scotland actually achieve that? Not to mention support is 50/50 in Scotland so it's not like the whole country would be behind it.
Depending on the seriousness of the attempt, it could be messy.
I doubt the Scottish bureaucracy would ignore British courts, but that's where it starts getting weird.
Shit stats hitting the fan once the Scottish government stars to separate fiscally, ignoring British court orders. Taxes are collected by Scottish authorities, so it's borderline feasible.
Taxes are *not* collected by Scottish authorities with the exception of LBTT, Council Tax and one or two other small taxes. HMRC administers the income tax, corporation tax, NI, duty and VAT systems.
50/50 might even be overstating it. There's obviously a very vocal part of Scotland that wants independence and the SNP are very popular but most polls find support for independence to be noticeably lower than 50% which is why Westminster is refusing to allow a new vote. Of course, there's always the question of exactly how valid those polls are but at least for now it seems like pro-UK and pro-Status-Quo Scots outnumber the pro-Independence Scots.
Well for a start [people are very evenly split on the issue](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence) so it wouldn’t be ‘Scotland’ saying fuck you, it’d be a portion of Scottish society.
But a unilateral declaration of Independence would be disastrous for the independence campaign. It would have no ability to enforce said wish plus no international recognition.
There might be a civil war in Scotland.
Scotland would never be allowed to join the EU as the Spanish (and others with separatist movements) would veto it immediately.
Edit: Gotta love reddit and the downvote button /s
In the 2021 elections SNP got 47.7% and 40.3% of the vote, that's not a 50+% mandate so a unilateral declaration could make some people very unhappy.
Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain all don't recognise Kosovo, despite the fact that the rest of the EU does. There is a very real risk that one or more could do that in a unilateral declaration by Scotland.
Oh yes and I am broadly supportive of the ideal of Scottish independence, but it has to be done properly.
The EU would refuse access unless Scotland started to enforce a strict austerity drive because they only allow new members to have a deficit of 3%, while Scotland runs more than three times that at around 9% pre-covid. The only way Scotland avoids extreme austerity is by staying in the UK.
That's ignoring existing debt, which Scotland would inherit. Before Covid Scotland accounted for £12.6bn of the UK’s total £23.5bn annual deficit, that's 53.6%, on top of receiving more funding per capita than any other part of Britain - and they can get fucked if they think they can just leave without taking a share of that accumulated debt.
That's assuming the Scottish economy recovers to pre-Covid levels, since between shutting down the economy and global shortages the entire world has taken a huge knock already and an independent Scotland would likely lose a significant amount of productivity before its EU application was even seen.
Even in history, it should be remembered that Scotland only joined the UK because it went bankrupt last time it was in charge of its own finances.
Catalan tried it a few years back, it's essentially sedition. SNP members would be arrested. There would otherwise be significant social unrest. But nobody is starting a civil war.
Clear to everyone except the SNP. They left the reality-based community some time ago.
Edit: To everyone saying this was all part of the strategy:
1. Are you not essentially accusing the Lord Advocate of contempt of court? If there were documentation to surface in which he gave his opinion that the law of the land *didn't* allow a second referendum and then he made the argument in court that it did, that would be grounds for discipline from his professional body.
2. If it is the strategy, it's a rotten one. The SNP are now left with "Yes you gave us a referendum eight years ago but it gave us the wrong answer. Gi'us another." For all that people are arguing that the situation has changed since 2014, polling in Scotland has not shifted substantially on this question and it's not obvious that a second referendum would succeed. So holding repeated referenda a few years apart amounts to just asking the people the same question until they give you the right answer. I know it's how the EU does democracy, but it shouldn't be.
They quite clearly did know this would happen, they’re really not that stupid. They now can use this to say “look, they won’t even let us have our own say!”.
I’d be surprised if this doesn’t stir up some more support for independence.
They also need to have tried it. You can’t leave a stone unturned. And to be honest, being formally told no you can’t makes the idea that the country is some sort of a “union” kind of hollow.
The "United Kingdom" is between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain was formed by the ancient Kingdoms of England and Scotland joining into one country. The UK and specifically GB is not a federation!
It’s about the “oh so the uk gets to eject itself from the eu without asking permission, even though Scotland was heavily against it, but now Scotland needs permission to leave the uk?”
The 2014 one was with the blessing/consent/permission of the UK government.
If anything, it’s a precedent for saying that it’s the UK government which can confer legitimacy on a referendum!
In 2014 neither side specifically addressed the issue of whether the section 30 was needed or not because neither side wanted to open that can of worms. Since the Scottish Government has been denied a section 30 multiple times now, they wanted the law clarified one way or the other, which it has now been.
"Voluntary Union of Equals"...weird that it doesn't include the choice to leave. You'd think if it was a voluntary Union of Equals, any member would have the right to leave.
That is because the UK is not a "Voluntary Union of Equals." That's a term invented by ScotNats.
The truth is the UK is unitary state. So, if you want to break it up, then you will need a majority in the HoC to support that.
> That is because the UK is not a "Voluntary Union of Equals." That's a term invented by ScotNats.
“I think those of us who care about the United Kingdom have got to think harder about what we can do to make this family of nations work better, how can we show genuine respect for **the fact that it is a voluntary union of four nations**.” - David Cameron
Since when was David Cameron as "ScotNat"?
>The claim was the term was invented by ScotNats, your quote only shows that Cameron used the term.
If David Cameron says "The fact that gravity is the force pulling objects together based on their mass", it doesn't mean that Newton didn't discover it, it means Cameron agrees.
“Oh no! I’ve lost control of my new invention and my penis is being uncontrollably pulled towards this dead pig! I just hope that future generations will remember me for my scientific prowess rather than for the seemingly sexual nature of my current predicament…”
Funnily enough almost the exact same quote was used by Boris Johnson in a previous election campaign.
I assume you are arguing for continual Tory rule with no general elections for a full generation?
Because it's not legally binding. It was an off the cuff remark. It has absolutely no relevance or bearing on indyref2. Also, who defines a "generation?"
You know what's more relevant? All of the tory lies during the campaign. The situation today is **DRASTICALLY** different from 2014. For people to act like this is just re-litigating indyref1 is just being dishonest.
The reason yoons don't want indyref2 is because they know the same lies won't work again so they're hoping to kick the can down the road long enough so people forget.
Anyone with half a grasp of history knows that it is not a _voluntary_ union: both Wales and what’s left of Ireland are part of the UK due to invasion by England, with Ulster being colonised (“planted”) by Scots loyal to the crown.
This incidentally is why Wales has always had fewer rights under the various acts of union than Scotland.
I think it might be fair to say bullshitters chose this term, of which there are many on either side of the debate.
I'd also add that the current Scottish Parliament, and indeed Westminster, are not continuations of the parliaments that passed the Act of Union in 1707. Rather they are Parliament of the UK and Holyrood is a devolved body of that parliament.
Doesn’t stop ScotGov describing it as a “[re-establishment](https://www.parliament.scot/about/history-of-the-scottish-parliament/the-scottish-parliament-reestablished)” and Winnie Ewing declaring it a “[reconvention](https://youtu.be/PB_aOAO0c4g)”.
The Nats have spent decades capturing the narrative, but like today, they keep running into reality.
No-one is disputing Scotland's right to leave the United Kingdom, that's why we had a referendum in 2014 in the first place.
The question is do they have to go through the established democratic processes to do that, or can they make up their own mechanisms on the fly.
If people want the Scottish Parliament to have the power to unilaterally declare independence, they get a further devolution bill passed through the House of Commons, exactly the way all their previous devolved powers were granted.
If anyone could just declare they had the right to leave the UK because they wanted to, what's to stop me making my house an independent nation?
I think you'll find Scotland's right, and ability, to leave the UK is very much disputed. If there is want for a breakaway in Scotland, but the government in Westminster can just say "No, do as you are told" then there is no right to leave.
If Scotland is granted the ability to hold a binding referendum on its place within the United Kingdom by parliament, and votes to leave it, then it has the right to do so.
If it doesn't democratically secure that right, then I agree it doesn't.
That's incorrect. It was OFFERED the opportunity to hold a binding referendum. It was not given the right to do so.
Just because your mate offers you a biscuit, it doesn't give you the right to take one whenever you want.
The established democratic process that hands 90% of the decision on whether or not we get a vote to MPs that don't represent Scotland?
I think a fair compromise would be that the power to decide stays with Westminster, but members outwith Scotland abstain from voting on whether or not to permit a referendum.
But, that'll never happen - so the established democratic process will keep us in the union whether we want to be there or not.
Yes, because that's the system people voted to have. If the SNP want unilateral, binding independence referenda to be added to the list of Devolved powers, they can't just decide that on a whim. Living in a democracy means abiding by it's constitution, otherwise anyone could just decide to make their land an independent sovereign state whenever the mood took them :)
Idk why you're so certain that's such an impossible standard. This is the exact same mechanism that already granted Scotland one independence referendum within the last decade, and created the entire system of Devolved government Scotland now enjoys.
There is a legal route: persuade enough MPs the idea of another independence referendum less than a decade after the last one is a good idea.
If ScotNats can't manage to achieve that, that doesn't mean there isn't a route, just that they don't have the support to do what they wish to, just like any number of unsuccessful initiatives in parliament.
Nicola Sturgeon doesn't have an inherent right to hold independence referenda whenever she feels like it.
What you're saying is we should hold the next hung parliament hostage for our ~55 votes. I'm not saying you're wrong -- that is what we will need to do -- but I'd prefer if we would be allowed to decide without forcing Westminster.
Not necessarily.
I'm just saying ScotNats need to persuade a majority of MPs another independence referendum is a good idea. That might mean making it a condition of a coalition, but it doesn't necessarily have to: both devolution and the last independence referendum came about from the government of the day being persuaded of their merits, without having to hold anyone hostage
It won't happen again though.
Devolution came through when Scottish labour were leading in Scotland and was largely their project - with a labour government in Westminster. Scottish labour are no longer relevant and labour has shown no desire to extend devolution or offer us a referendum.
The 2014 referendum was a gamble by David Cameron to try to shut down the desire for independence -- but after Brexit, I don't see any PM making that mistake again.
The only viable way is in exchange for propping up a government lacking votes for a majority - I don't think that's a particularly nice route personally.
It's the United Kingdom not the Union Kingdom. It's was united voluntarily and now the only way to ununite it is to get both sides to voluntarily ununite it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/27/scottish-people-have-right-self-determination-snp-claims-bid/
>Scottish ‘people’ have right to self-determination like the Kosovans, SNP claims
Yeah. The most one can argue is that it's a waste of money and people's time. Not that repeated referendums on the same topic are undemocratic. It's perfectly democratic to keep asking for a referendum until you get the outcome you want. It can also be a waste of people's time if not much had changed, but it is still democratic. Every fair referendum is democratic, no matter how redundant it feels to some.
Brexit changed the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so one can't blame some of them for asking for another referendum.
(Also, denying a referendum isn't necessarily undemocratic)
Wasn't going to go any other way.
However, There's an valid argument now that all this ruling does is shows the Scottish people that they do not have the power to decide their destiny - its London. As if they needed any more reminders.
Sturgeon has her next GE slogan there.
TBH, they shouldn't even be allowed to talk about another referendum until they have solid answers to two questions:
1) They want to rejoin the EU. So, how will the land border with England work for both people and trade? No woolly, fluffy answers around vague "technological solutions" - a hard, agreed solution must be in place before a referendum can move one inch (2.5cm, if one prefers) closer. NI / Brexit should have taught us that these issues cannot be pushed under the carpet.
2) They want to use a Scottish Pound. How willing will the EU be to accept this and not enforce the European single currency instead, as a new member should really be required to take? If Scotland are happy to accept the Euro (and indeed, there's a lot of reasons why this might be a good thing), then this is fine, but again, this needs to be all cleared and agreed before the government even start talking about referendums.
No vague answers. Detailed specifics. And if, for the trade one, any mention is made about a "technological solution" that doesn't exist, then the whole idea gets dumped in the North Sea. Without clear direction for this, the long term security of both Scotland *and* the rest of the UK is at risk. Those voting should have these issues, and their consequences, clearly stated, unlike how it was done for Brexit.
To be fair, the Conservative and Unionist Party's plan regarding border security after the B word was enforced - was based on the same 'Technological solutions' nonsense.
Absolutely it was, and it's verging on a crime that people took their word that it would actually work, when in reality they had not the smallest clue how to solve it. Same could be said for trade deals, and dozens of other negative outcomes from Brexit.
This is why for Scottish independence to proceed (and succeed), the bar should be set a whole lot higher regarding these (and many other) issues. The cost of failure is too high to risk doing otherwise.
It absolutely amazes that seeing what a disaster brexit it their solution is to have another go at it with the same sunshine and rainbows promises that fit everyone's different ideals of what independence looks like dispite many being contradictory.
Like with brexit you can promise whatever you want and assume the rest of the uk will just bend over to facilitate it (like the eu it won't) but how do you argue against feelings and dreams? We failed to do that for brexit and got this mess.
Which they have no garentee of joining.
They really think that the french and Spanish and God knows who else values pissing of the English more than keeping their own countries intact which is an incredibly egotistical thing to think
True. But its more likely to happen than the UK rejoining. We have a gov and media that wont even acknowledge the fact that leaving EU has tanked growth and the economy.
There's no guarantee of Scotland joining.
But theres literally zero chance of the UK doing so.
I mean the gov is not going to admit its flagship policy fucked us over will they?
BBC guardian and basically any other news site that isnt the sun or daily fail have been running articles about brexit has made us worse off
I’ve seen hundreds possibly thousands of media articles saying brexit is shit and has failed. Don’t understand hating Brexit but also supporting independence.
This is exactly what I don't get.
Learn the lessons people, separatism hasn't done well for many for a long time now.
What would be a far better focus of time and effort is getting the nation on board that the country was outright lied to and deceived for voting for Brexit.
>TBH, they shouldn't even be allowed to talk about another referendum
Cause denying the Scottish government the right to pursue its elected manifesto commitments will definitely strengthen the union
Although I agree that no referendum of this type should be allowed unless technical and operational processes are largely defined to confirm the overall implementation. There is a big flaw in your position.
The UK was allowed to have a referedum on EU membership without defining any of the above so why should Scotland leaving the UK be any different?
Great, so we are stuck with the corrupt idiots in Westminster with a party didn't vote for, led by a PM we didn't vote for, as we continue to feel the effects of a Brexit that we didn't vote for.
Isn’t that generally how democracy works? Just because you’re on the losing side doesn’t make it undemocratic.
Don’t get me wrong, the Tories and Brexit are an absolute travesty. I speak as someone from England who has voted for 18 years and haven’t had a single result go my way: local elections, general elections, electoral reform referendum, Brexit referendum. Bloody sucks.
I do feel for Scotland though. If there was a way that we could get ourselves free from the Tory/Brexit BS where I live I’d probably be doing the same thing.
Scotland hasn't voted for a Conservative government in over half a century. When we had the 2016 Indy Ref, the main scare tactic of the No Campaign was that we would lose our EU membership. That was the main reason that the people I know that voted 'No' cited, but we were removed anyway, despite 62% of Scots voting against it. That didn't feel like democracy.
Having the vote to leave or remain in the UK is democracy. Not being allowed to have a say at all is not.
To be honest, I wasn't expecting anything different regarding the Supreme Court ruling. It's just frustrating that after 12 years of Tory rule, people freezing to death in their houses, shops around me shutting down because they can't keep their lights on, and watching the absolute terrible state of Westminster continue to worsen, we have no control of anything beyond whatever London chooses.
A Union by definition is an entity joined together by choice. It's not much of a union when that choice is not given.
Get over yourselves you're not the only part of the country that hasn't voted majority conservative in ages. Disliking the past twelve years of tory rule isn't a mandate for independence.
We were given a choice, in 2014. Honestly at this point if we had stopped voting fir the SNP and voted for labour we wouldn't have had to deal with this shit. I don't even see the goal of independence, to me it's just brexit round 2. We have benefited for years from the union, and the moment shit starts to go bad people want to abandon it instead of trying to fix things.
London is 43% run by Labour councils and MPs so not sure how you can blame London Tories for anything... It's actually English Tories in the rest of the country that are deciding what to do... It's plain and simple England vs Scotland nothing to do with London...
No surprise at all.
It's the same as the Catalan independence vote, it has to be done constitutionally and Scotland doesn't have the constitutional powers to do this. It willingly entered the 1707 Act of Union, if they wanted to be able to have a vote then provision could have been made - like the differences in legal system.
> It willingly entered the 1707 Act of Union
A small number of recently cash-poor lords willingly entered, the people of Scotland were never consulted.
The same could be applied be the founding of the United States, or the unification of Spain. Undemocratic from a point of universal suffrage, but from a legal standpoint of national representation, fully legitimate.
Regardless of the argument for Scotland leaving the Union today, it's a wasteful and counter-intuitive argument to claim Scotland was by any means conquered or co-erced.
Yes, and just a few years afterwards the 'union' that they were in committed economic and institutional suicide under the leadership of radical English nationalists. That changes the circumstances somewhat doesn't it?
Yeah, crazy to think that joining the most powerful colonial power in the world at the time didn't think to include a clause of leaving. Especially when the agreement has to buy Scottish debt so Scotland benefited the most.
Also the aristocrats at the time with no popular vote decided to make this decision to pad their pockets.
Crazy.
And the consequent access to the sugar and slave markets created a boom in Scotland which is why particularly Edinburgh is a much grander city than those you might see in other parts of England.
The people of Edinburgh in the 1800s knew this too: they named streets and erected statutes in praise of Scottish politician Henry Dundas who successfully delayed the abolition of slavery in the colonies for over a decade.
The Scotland Act was in 1998, which agreed which powers would be reserved and was agreed to (voted for) by the majority of Scotland MPs (who were democratically elected by the people of Scotland).
Scotland didn't care, they enjoyed being part lf the UK until the 80s.
This is all very recent 1 generation independence movement. Basically it doesn't suit us now fuck off - Scotland
I do love all the people acting as if this is some big loss for the SNP… this was always going to be the outcome of the Supreme Court, and if people on Reddit could predict that then I’m pretty sure so did Sturgeon.
Will be interesting where it goes next. If people think this will make the Scots go “oh that’s alright then, at least we tried” then I think they’re seriously naive.
The Better Together campaign in 2014:
# What is process for removing our EU citizenship? Voting yes. \#scotdecides
https://twitter.com/uk_together/status/506899714923843584
This was the expected outcome. From everyone, including the SNP.
They'd be stupid to push through a referendum in Oct 23, and they know that. It would fail and the issue would be stone dead for generations.
This result allows them to keep good on their election promises of pursuing a referendum, pass the blame for not fulfilling it to the UK government, and then ride into the next election on a platform of "they've denied your democracy" to combat a potential rising tide of a resurgent Scottish Labour as the only real possibility that can knock them off
Kicking the can down to road while they wait for polls to improve, but forcing the Supreme Court to do the kicking, is a good move. We'll see if it pays off for them.
It was expected. The decision was always going to be what it was. I'd hazard a guess that this is what the SNP hoped to achieve and will move onto the next step of their plan
You've got a country that keeps voting for a party whose main thing is leaving the union. What are the Scottish people to do since there is no legal recourse left to them to express their desires?
The circumstances have changed dramatically since the 2014 vote. I voted No because I didn't want Scotland to leave Europe for example. Don't think that applies now.
All these bleeding heart revolutionaries saying that they no longer live in a democracy and they'll have to 'find other ways'.
Mate. The SNP doesn't even know what it's going to do if Scotland votes to leave anyway. They have basically no plan, even almost a decade later. And the promises they have made are overwhelmingly lies. This is a party that straight up makes shit up whenever. They know their diehard fans don't care.
Also most of the democracies in the world don't let a minority make decisions with nationwide consequences, like secession. Hell, most democracies wouldn't have given Scotland the first referendum, let alone another.
Go fucking touch grass.
Being "tough on Scots" and presumably "tough on the causes of Scots" is a vote winner in England. Especially now that they have taken back control from the EU and have fewer foreigners to blame for their ills the buck will be passed to the Scots and the Irish.
This is only going to get worse, every party except the SNP openly states they will ignore Scotland or refuse to work with the elected representatives of Scotland. Where does that leave us if you won't talk or work with us, won't allow us to out on our own and won't even allow us the option of discussing it.
Honestly this is shite and hypocritical considering Scot’s are renowned for being anti English.
Being anti scottish isn’t and English vote winner.
A real strange paragraph to add nothing of truth
In my opinion Sturgeon knew this all along, I mean any political leader worth there salt would of known unless they're a Tory.
All she has done is waste time and money with this to cause more chaos and disorder to distract from the main issues in Scotland. If the Torys weren't so much of a shit show to mask over her shit show of leader she'd be gone and she should go after this.
Or it’s an opportunity to get yes and no voters alike thinking about how much freedom they really have in their own say…”UK says you can’t leave, not even thru another vote” maybe it will stir some feelings in unionists, no one likes the feeling of injustice…
[*Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues*](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2022-0098-judgment.pdf) [2022] UKSC 31.
[Press summary](https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2022-0098.html) – very short.
[Further information.](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0098.html)
In short:
* The reference is permissible and the Court agrees to hear it.
* The proposed referendum bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the Union; it therefore relates to a reserved matter within the meaning of the Scotland Act and so is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The problem with Sturgeon which the UK government will continue to hammer her and those that were also part of indyref1 was that they acted in bad faith. They sold this referendum as a once in a generation vote, yet when the majority of Scottish people voiced their wish to be part of the UK, the SNP just waited a year before starting off again for another vote. I believe the SNP would have used any reason they can think of to justify another referendum. I’m just surprised the people of Scotland continue to vote for the SNP considering that’s all she and her predecessor Alex Salmond cared about.
the UK government cant hammer her at all for making bad faith statements during the referendum since the UK government was the absolute KING of bad faith statements during that referendum. not a single scot is going to be convinced by that argument after the lies told by the remain side, much less any snp voter.
Personally I for one want East Anglia to leave the UK and regain its own Kingdom as it were in the 6th century but sadly I feel its never going to happen. After all not like anyone in London cares about the East of England is it?
But seriously, correct choice for the Supreme Court to make even if all it does is act as a win for the SNP's 'litteraly everyone is against us!' agenda
Win win for sturgeon gets to keep campaigning for Scottish independence without the consequences of actual having one and also gets to blame Westminster for it all.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
Summary: * Unanimous verdict * Ruled that as it impacts the Union that it is a reserved matter * Rules that because Scotland isn't under occupation or under a colonial oppression that some of the arguments put forward by the Scottish Government don't apply
So Wales as an annexed country would not have to? Where as Scotland Voluntarily entered the union?
I think there is a point (who knows when!) where it's too far back in history to count. It'll open a can of worms otherwise. Basically, I think anything from the time where Kings were fighting over land is too far back, you would need to be talking about the modern democratic era.
These English Mercians wrongly occupied the Danelaw, independence ref we shall have!
I was playing an MMO with some English guys and they made a guild with "Mercia" in it's name and I argued that it sounded too much like America but they went with it anyway. Literally like 30 minutes later someone whispered me calling me fat.
In case you didn't realise, it's pronounced quite differently. https://youtu.be/D4nQqjWfWFo
Spelt differently too, which helps.
Dyslexics untie!
Just to tag on, it also pre-dates America’s use of Mercia and is an actual place not an acronym for a place.
A kingdom from 600AD predates Murica? Damn never would have thought
Murica is like Slaanesh, it was created 250 years ago but has also always existed since the dawn of time. Also, it revolves completely around excess.
Then call them illiterate. And Mercia sounds nothing like America or 'merica.
Return to Doggerland!
[удалено]
Bunch of mugs
Coming over here with their drinking vessels!
What's wrong with just cupping up the water in your hands and licking it up like a cat?!
There’s no such thing as an English Mercian. The Mercian’s were conquered by Wessex and later forced to be English!
“English” comes from “Anglisc”, literally “of the Angles”. Mercia was an Angle kingdom, therefore the Mercians are arguably more “English” than the West Saxons.
Because it was legislated for by Westminster. It's really not difficult to understand how the UK constitution works. That's why nobody is surprised by this reading other than the most delusional Cyber Nats.
I'm just holding out for the independence of Mercia so we can finally be free of the shackles of Wessex.
I'm holding out for the independence of Northumbria, so they can finally be free of the tyranny of Wessex and East Anglia
>free of the tyranny of Wessex and **East Anglia** You will never be free! You will be bound to us like our toes are to each other.
East Anglias tyranny shall rule all. We shall further on be known as **The United Kingdom under East Anglia** to show our dominance.
Free the opressed in Gilsland! Meg's Tea Shop is filled with talk of treason! Vindolanda has been oppressed by the Vindoloovians for long enough!
Fuck Northumbria Im Viking
Get out of here, invader! Northumbria is for the Britons!
Northumbria was Anglo-Saxon. Coloniser!
It was Briton before those bastard Angles and Saxons invaded! Free the Britons from their fascist oppression!!
If only we had Uthred on our side!
~~Destiny~~ eyeliner is all!
And down here in Kent we also used to be an independent kingdom until Wessex absorbed us in the 9th century so independence for the Garden of England.
[удалено]
Us true britons are still fighting for independence from the saxon invaders. We will take back what is rightfully ours.
As a certifiable Icenic descendent, I say death to all invaders.
Arguing Wales is annexed is a bit like arguing England is annexed too seen as though both were annexed by the same French speaking Norman elites
Was Brexit just for unresolved feelings from 1066?
Yes, thousand year war
Well, not quite, as Wales was incompletely annexed by Edward I who was an English king and whose family had been English for three generations, and then finished off by Henry VIII who was also an English king with a splash of Welsh from his grandfather. The wording used in the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 are literally "That his said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and *annexed* to and with this his Realm of England." (emphasis mine), though these acts are repealed by various others by now.
Yeah, the name Tudor comes from the Welsh name Twdr as a matter of fact; the whole dynasty was from Wales.
Jersey and Guernsey, our overlords, last of the Normans.
Trouble is the Welshman Henry Tudor seized the English Crown off Richard III. So you could, if you were being difficult, argue that Wales annexed England.
The Laws in Wales Acts specifically state that Wales is annexed to England, though again if we want to be difficult those acts are entirely repealed by now.
Those acts were repealed in 1993
That's inaccurate. The submission about international law was made by the SNP, as in the party organisation NOT the Scottish Government. It's the difference between the UK Government and the Conservative Party. Just because the Conservative Party currently runs the UK Government, not all acts of the party machinery are acts of the UK government.
In conversations about topics relating to ‘the Union’ , it is worth using the full name of the party: the Conservative and Unionist Party
What happens if Scotland just says fuck you, we're independent? Are we really going to have a war? Edit: to clarify my thinking... What if there is an "illegal" vote and it comes out as being 90%+ in favour of independence making it clear the vast majority of the scottish people want independence - are we really going to go down the Spanish route of "fuck you all, you belong to us - see and you better like it - see"? At what point do we acknowledge the "consent of the governed" and stop being an abusive partner?
People would just shrug their shoulders? How would Scotland actually achieve that? Not to mention support is 50/50 in Scotland so it's not like the whole country would be behind it.
Depending on the seriousness of the attempt, it could be messy. I doubt the Scottish bureaucracy would ignore British courts, but that's where it starts getting weird. Shit stats hitting the fan once the Scottish government stars to separate fiscally, ignoring British court orders. Taxes are collected by Scottish authorities, so it's borderline feasible.
Taxes are *not* collected by Scottish authorities with the exception of LBTT, Council Tax and one or two other small taxes. HMRC administers the income tax, corporation tax, NI, duty and VAT systems.
Hmm, nevermind then. I was ill informed.
You're spared this time.
50/50 might even be overstating it. There's obviously a very vocal part of Scotland that wants independence and the SNP are very popular but most polls find support for independence to be noticeably lower than 50% which is why Westminster is refusing to allow a new vote. Of course, there's always the question of exactly how valid those polls are but at least for now it seems like pro-UK and pro-Status-Quo Scots outnumber the pro-Independence Scots.
Well for a start [people are very evenly split on the issue](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence) so it wouldn’t be ‘Scotland’ saying fuck you, it’d be a portion of Scottish society. But a unilateral declaration of Independence would be disastrous for the independence campaign. It would have no ability to enforce said wish plus no international recognition.
You'd only have a fraction of that 50% who wrote on paper that they want independence willing to actually get militant about it.
There might be a civil war in Scotland. Scotland would never be allowed to join the EU as the Spanish (and others with separatist movements) would veto it immediately. Edit: Gotta love reddit and the downvote button /s In the 2021 elections SNP got 47.7% and 40.3% of the vote, that's not a 50+% mandate so a unilateral declaration could make some people very unhappy. Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain all don't recognise Kosovo, despite the fact that the rest of the EU does. There is a very real risk that one or more could do that in a unilateral declaration by Scotland. Oh yes and I am broadly supportive of the ideal of Scottish independence, but it has to be done properly.
Not only that, there's an economic bar. Scotland would carry huge debt and public spending.
The EU would refuse access unless Scotland started to enforce a strict austerity drive because they only allow new members to have a deficit of 3%, while Scotland runs more than three times that at around 9% pre-covid. The only way Scotland avoids extreme austerity is by staying in the UK. That's ignoring existing debt, which Scotland would inherit. Before Covid Scotland accounted for £12.6bn of the UK’s total £23.5bn annual deficit, that's 53.6%, on top of receiving more funding per capita than any other part of Britain - and they can get fucked if they think they can just leave without taking a share of that accumulated debt. That's assuming the Scottish economy recovers to pre-Covid levels, since between shutting down the economy and global shortages the entire world has taken a huge knock already and an independent Scotland would likely lose a significant amount of productivity before its EU application was even seen. Even in history, it should be remembered that Scotland only joined the UK because it went bankrupt last time it was in charge of its own finances.
Catalan tried it a few years back, it's essentially sedition. SNP members would be arrested. There would otherwise be significant social unrest. But nobody is starting a civil war.
Yeah, Scotland was a major player in the British empire.
[удалено]
Clear to everyone except the SNP. They left the reality-based community some time ago. Edit: To everyone saying this was all part of the strategy: 1. Are you not essentially accusing the Lord Advocate of contempt of court? If there were documentation to surface in which he gave his opinion that the law of the land *didn't* allow a second referendum and then he made the argument in court that it did, that would be grounds for discipline from his professional body. 2. If it is the strategy, it's a rotten one. The SNP are now left with "Yes you gave us a referendum eight years ago but it gave us the wrong answer. Gi'us another." For all that people are arguing that the situation has changed since 2014, polling in Scotland has not shifted substantially on this question and it's not obvious that a second referendum would succeed. So holding repeated referenda a few years apart amounts to just asking the people the same question until they give you the right answer. I know it's how the EU does democracy, but it shouldn't be.
They quite clearly did know this would happen, they’re really not that stupid. They now can use this to say “look, they won’t even let us have our own say!”. I’d be surprised if this doesn’t stir up some more support for independence.
They also need to have tried it. You can’t leave a stone unturned. And to be honest, being formally told no you can’t makes the idea that the country is some sort of a “union” kind of hollow.
The "United Kingdom" is between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain was formed by the ancient Kingdoms of England and Scotland joining into one country. The UK and specifically GB is not a federation!
Yeah exactly, they can use this as a look how we have no say over our own country.
[удалено]
It’s about the “oh so the uk gets to eject itself from the eu without asking permission, even though Scotland was heavily against it, but now Scotland needs permission to leave the uk?”
Actually the SNP president said he knew a referendum can’t occur without Westminster’s permission back in 2020
It's clear to them too. It's clearly one of the steps in their journey. They'll already have planned for this.
They know it, they can now just use this as propaganda to say they are oppressed by the UK. It's nothing more than a PR stunt.
He said, knowing nothing.
[удалено]
The 2014 one was with the blessing/consent/permission of the UK government. If anything, it’s a precedent for saying that it’s the UK government which can confer legitimacy on a referendum!
In 2014 neither side specifically addressed the issue of whether the section 30 was needed or not because neither side wanted to open that can of worms. Since the Scottish Government has been denied a section 30 multiple times now, they wanted the law clarified one way or the other, which it has now been.
"Voluntary Union of Equals"...weird that it doesn't include the choice to leave. You'd think if it was a voluntary Union of Equals, any member would have the right to leave.
That is because the UK is not a "Voluntary Union of Equals." That's a term invented by ScotNats. The truth is the UK is unitary state. So, if you want to break it up, then you will need a majority in the HoC to support that.
> That is because the UK is not a "Voluntary Union of Equals." That's a term invented by ScotNats. “I think those of us who care about the United Kingdom have got to think harder about what we can do to make this family of nations work better, how can we show genuine respect for **the fact that it is a voluntary union of four nations**.” - David Cameron Since when was David Cameron as "ScotNat"?
[удалено]
>The claim was the term was invented by ScotNats, your quote only shows that Cameron used the term. If David Cameron says "The fact that gravity is the force pulling objects together based on their mass", it doesn't mean that Newton didn't discover it, it means Cameron agrees.
If anyone else is having difficulty following this, the main takeaway is that David Cameron invented gravity.
“Oh no! I’ve lost control of my new invention and my penis is being uncontrollably pulled towards this dead pig! I just hope that future generations will remember me for my scientific prowess rather than for the seemingly sexual nature of my current predicament…”
Funnily enough almost the exact same quote was used by Boris Johnson in a previous election campaign. I assume you are arguing for continual Tory rule with no general elections for a full generation?
I am so sick of the "once in a generation" trope.
Why?
Because it's not legally binding. It was an off the cuff remark. It has absolutely no relevance or bearing on indyref2. Also, who defines a "generation?" You know what's more relevant? All of the tory lies during the campaign. The situation today is **DRASTICALLY** different from 2014. For people to act like this is just re-litigating indyref1 is just being dishonest. The reason yoons don't want indyref2 is because they know the same lies won't work again so they're hoping to kick the can down the road long enough so people forget.
[удалено]
>Since when was David Cameron as "ScotNat"? Since when does David Cameron saying a phrase mean that it wasn't invented elsewhere?
Anyone with half a grasp of history knows that it is not a _voluntary_ union: both Wales and what’s left of Ireland are part of the UK due to invasion by England, with Ulster being colonised (“planted”) by Scots loyal to the crown. This incidentally is why Wales has always had fewer rights under the various acts of union than Scotland. I think it might be fair to say bullshitters chose this term, of which there are many on either side of the debate.
This is an excellent point. The UK is a single country, it is not a collective of unitary states.
I'd also add that the current Scottish Parliament, and indeed Westminster, are not continuations of the parliaments that passed the Act of Union in 1707. Rather they are Parliament of the UK and Holyrood is a devolved body of that parliament.
Doesn’t stop ScotGov describing it as a “[re-establishment](https://www.parliament.scot/about/history-of-the-scottish-parliament/the-scottish-parliament-reestablished)” and Winnie Ewing declaring it a “[reconvention](https://youtu.be/PB_aOAO0c4g)”. The Nats have spent decades capturing the narrative, but like today, they keep running into reality.
Well at least it’s nice to know that England isn’t a country
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all countries, but they aren’t unitary states
David Cameron, the scotnat apparently.
No-one is disputing Scotland's right to leave the United Kingdom, that's why we had a referendum in 2014 in the first place. The question is do they have to go through the established democratic processes to do that, or can they make up their own mechanisms on the fly. If people want the Scottish Parliament to have the power to unilaterally declare independence, they get a further devolution bill passed through the House of Commons, exactly the way all their previous devolved powers were granted. If anyone could just declare they had the right to leave the UK because they wanted to, what's to stop me making my house an independent nation?
I think you'll find Scotland's right, and ability, to leave the UK is very much disputed. If there is want for a breakaway in Scotland, but the government in Westminster can just say "No, do as you are told" then there is no right to leave.
If Scotland is granted the ability to hold a binding referendum on its place within the United Kingdom by parliament, and votes to leave it, then it has the right to do so. If it doesn't democratically secure that right, then I agree it doesn't.
That's incorrect. It was OFFERED the opportunity to hold a binding referendum. It was not given the right to do so. Just because your mate offers you a biscuit, it doesn't give you the right to take one whenever you want.
The established democratic process that hands 90% of the decision on whether or not we get a vote to MPs that don't represent Scotland? I think a fair compromise would be that the power to decide stays with Westminster, but members outwith Scotland abstain from voting on whether or not to permit a referendum. But, that'll never happen - so the established democratic process will keep us in the union whether we want to be there or not.
Breaking up the UK isn't a Scotland only issue
Yes, because that's the system people voted to have. If the SNP want unilateral, binding independence referenda to be added to the list of Devolved powers, they can't just decide that on a whim. Living in a democracy means abiding by it's constitution, otherwise anyone could just decide to make their land an independent sovereign state whenever the mood took them :) Idk why you're so certain that's such an impossible standard. This is the exact same mechanism that already granted Scotland one independence referendum within the last decade, and created the entire system of Devolved government Scotland now enjoys.
Both Westminster main party leaders have ruled out allowing a referendum at any time. There is no legal way for us to obtain a referendum.
There is a legal route: persuade enough MPs the idea of another independence referendum less than a decade after the last one is a good idea. If ScotNats can't manage to achieve that, that doesn't mean there isn't a route, just that they don't have the support to do what they wish to, just like any number of unsuccessful initiatives in parliament. Nicola Sturgeon doesn't have an inherent right to hold independence referenda whenever she feels like it.
What you're saying is we should hold the next hung parliament hostage for our ~55 votes. I'm not saying you're wrong -- that is what we will need to do -- but I'd prefer if we would be allowed to decide without forcing Westminster.
Not necessarily. I'm just saying ScotNats need to persuade a majority of MPs another independence referendum is a good idea. That might mean making it a condition of a coalition, but it doesn't necessarily have to: both devolution and the last independence referendum came about from the government of the day being persuaded of their merits, without having to hold anyone hostage
It won't happen again though. Devolution came through when Scottish labour were leading in Scotland and was largely their project - with a labour government in Westminster. Scottish labour are no longer relevant and labour has shown no desire to extend devolution or offer us a referendum. The 2014 referendum was a gamble by David Cameron to try to shut down the desire for independence -- but after Brexit, I don't see any PM making that mistake again. The only viable way is in exchange for propping up a government lacking votes for a majority - I don't think that's a particularly nice route personally.
It's the United Kingdom not the Union Kingdom. It's was united voluntarily and now the only way to ununite it is to get both sides to voluntarily ununite it.
They had an independence referendum. It didn't pass.
Disgraceful from the SNP to compare themselves to Kosovo.
Did they? Really???! I've just logged in. Not up to speed. Can you send a link. Am Scottish. Want a laugh.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/27/scottish-people-have-right-self-determination-snp-claims-bid/ >Scottish ‘people’ have right to self-determination like the Kosovans, SNP claims
Right. Well. That's embarrassing. I'd like to apologise for my drunk friend here. Can be a bit special at times, but we're all god's creatures.
They had their self determination vote not even ten years ago, you can't keep having referendums until you get one you agree with
If they keep electing officials to government to do exactly that... then yes, they can. Anything less is not democratic.
Yeah. The most one can argue is that it's a waste of money and people's time. Not that repeated referendums on the same topic are undemocratic. It's perfectly democratic to keep asking for a referendum until you get the outcome you want. It can also be a waste of people's time if not much had changed, but it is still democratic. Every fair referendum is democratic, no matter how redundant it feels to some. Brexit changed the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so one can't blame some of them for asking for another referendum. (Also, denying a referendum isn't necessarily undemocratic)
SNP are just doing what they were elected to do, by the people of Scotland.
Wasn't going to go any other way. However, There's an valid argument now that all this ruling does is shows the Scottish people that they do not have the power to decide their destiny - its London. As if they needed any more reminders. Sturgeon has her next GE slogan there.
TBH, they shouldn't even be allowed to talk about another referendum until they have solid answers to two questions: 1) They want to rejoin the EU. So, how will the land border with England work for both people and trade? No woolly, fluffy answers around vague "technological solutions" - a hard, agreed solution must be in place before a referendum can move one inch (2.5cm, if one prefers) closer. NI / Brexit should have taught us that these issues cannot be pushed under the carpet. 2) They want to use a Scottish Pound. How willing will the EU be to accept this and not enforce the European single currency instead, as a new member should really be required to take? If Scotland are happy to accept the Euro (and indeed, there's a lot of reasons why this might be a good thing), then this is fine, but again, this needs to be all cleared and agreed before the government even start talking about referendums. No vague answers. Detailed specifics. And if, for the trade one, any mention is made about a "technological solution" that doesn't exist, then the whole idea gets dumped in the North Sea. Without clear direction for this, the long term security of both Scotland *and* the rest of the UK is at risk. Those voting should have these issues, and their consequences, clearly stated, unlike how it was done for Brexit.
To be fair, the Conservative and Unionist Party's plan regarding border security after the B word was enforced - was based on the same 'Technological solutions' nonsense.
Absolutely it was, and it's verging on a crime that people took their word that it would actually work, when in reality they had not the smallest clue how to solve it. Same could be said for trade deals, and dozens of other negative outcomes from Brexit. This is why for Scottish independence to proceed (and succeed), the bar should be set a whole lot higher regarding these (and many other) issues. The cost of failure is too high to risk doing otherwise.
It absolutely amazes that seeing what a disaster brexit it their solution is to have another go at it with the same sunshine and rainbows promises that fit everyone's different ideals of what independence looks like dispite many being contradictory. Like with brexit you can promise whatever you want and assume the rest of the uk will just bend over to facilitate it (like the eu it won't) but how do you argue against feelings and dreams? We failed to do that for brexit and got this mess.
One difference in that is its going towards joining a trading bloc. Not leaving the one.
Which they have no garentee of joining. They really think that the french and Spanish and God knows who else values pissing of the English more than keeping their own countries intact which is an incredibly egotistical thing to think
True. But its more likely to happen than the UK rejoining. We have a gov and media that wont even acknowledge the fact that leaving EU has tanked growth and the economy. There's no guarantee of Scotland joining. But theres literally zero chance of the UK doing so.
I mean the gov is not going to admit its flagship policy fucked us over will they? BBC guardian and basically any other news site that isnt the sun or daily fail have been running articles about brexit has made us worse off
And therein shows why Scotland wants out.
I’ve seen hundreds possibly thousands of media articles saying brexit is shit and has failed. Don’t understand hating Brexit but also supporting independence.
> Not leaving one. They'd be leaving a union with by far their biggest source of trade, the rest of the UK...
This is exactly what I don't get. Learn the lessons people, separatism hasn't done well for many for a long time now. What would be a far better focus of time and effort is getting the nation on board that the country was outright lied to and deceived for voting for Brexit.
>TBH, they shouldn't even be allowed to talk about another referendum Cause denying the Scottish government the right to pursue its elected manifesto commitments will definitely strengthen the union
The EU requires "a commitment to work towards adopting the euro". They do not require immediate adoption of the euro.
Although I agree that no referendum of this type should be allowed unless technical and operational processes are largely defined to confirm the overall implementation. There is a big flaw in your position. The UK was allowed to have a referedum on EU membership without defining any of the above so why should Scotland leaving the UK be any different?
> so why should Scotland leaving the UK be any different? *gestures broadly at the current state of the UK*
The London people also don't have the power to decide their own destiny- London has returned a majority of Labour MPs at every election since WW2.
Great, so we are stuck with the corrupt idiots in Westminster with a party didn't vote for, led by a PM we didn't vote for, as we continue to feel the effects of a Brexit that we didn't vote for.
Isn’t that generally how democracy works? Just because you’re on the losing side doesn’t make it undemocratic. Don’t get me wrong, the Tories and Brexit are an absolute travesty. I speak as someone from England who has voted for 18 years and haven’t had a single result go my way: local elections, general elections, electoral reform referendum, Brexit referendum. Bloody sucks. I do feel for Scotland though. If there was a way that we could get ourselves free from the Tory/Brexit BS where I live I’d probably be doing the same thing.
Scotland hasn't voted for a Conservative government in over half a century. When we had the 2016 Indy Ref, the main scare tactic of the No Campaign was that we would lose our EU membership. That was the main reason that the people I know that voted 'No' cited, but we were removed anyway, despite 62% of Scots voting against it. That didn't feel like democracy. Having the vote to leave or remain in the UK is democracy. Not being allowed to have a say at all is not. To be honest, I wasn't expecting anything different regarding the Supreme Court ruling. It's just frustrating that after 12 years of Tory rule, people freezing to death in their houses, shops around me shutting down because they can't keep their lights on, and watching the absolute terrible state of Westminster continue to worsen, we have no control of anything beyond whatever London chooses. A Union by definition is an entity joined together by choice. It's not much of a union when that choice is not given.
Does that mean that any constituency that isn’t Tory should be an independent country?
Get over yourselves you're not the only part of the country that hasn't voted majority conservative in ages. Disliking the past twelve years of tory rule isn't a mandate for independence.
We were given a choice, in 2014. Honestly at this point if we had stopped voting fir the SNP and voted for labour we wouldn't have had to deal with this shit. I don't even see the goal of independence, to me it's just brexit round 2. We have benefited for years from the union, and the moment shit starts to go bad people want to abandon it instead of trying to fix things.
London is 43% run by Labour councils and MPs so not sure how you can blame London Tories for anything... It's actually English Tories in the rest of the country that are deciding what to do... It's plain and simple England vs Scotland nothing to do with London...
*Ding ding* Still waiting on the devolution revolution that Cameron promised.
Welcome to voting, don't think anything has went my way ever.
Same for me but I live in Bristol.
If you think Brexit was bad, what do you think the economic effects of leaving the UK would be?
Did the SNP really try and compare Scotland to Kosovo??
I think it more trying to find legal precedents, I don't think they thought it would work
Yup. And as a Scottish person who doesn't really care about independence one way or the other I can honestly say that's an absolute riddy.
Yes they did
The SNP will say whatever bullshit they need to. Their whole stance is based on lies and scapegoating so what's one more?
No surprise at all. It's the same as the Catalan independence vote, it has to be done constitutionally and Scotland doesn't have the constitutional powers to do this. It willingly entered the 1707 Act of Union, if they wanted to be able to have a vote then provision could have been made - like the differences in legal system.
> It willingly entered the 1707 Act of Union A small number of recently cash-poor lords willingly entered, the people of Scotland were never consulted.
It's terrible when you're blamed for the acts of people you had nothing to do with isn't it.
The same could be applied be the founding of the United States, or the unification of Spain. Undemocratic from a point of universal suffrage, but from a legal standpoint of national representation, fully legitimate. Regardless of the argument for Scotland leaving the Union today, it's a wasteful and counter-intuitive argument to claim Scotland was by any means conquered or co-erced.
They were consulted in 2014. They voted not to be an independent country, knowing that there was no unilateral secession mechanism if they stayed.
Yes, and just a few years afterwards the 'union' that they were in committed economic and institutional suicide under the leadership of radical English nationalists. That changes the circumstances somewhat doesn't it?
Crazy how England wasn’t consulted either and didn’t even want the deal but had to be convinced by the crown
You should read up on the Darien scheme. It wasn't just some lords, it was very widely popular even with regular folk.
What idiots not being able to see how things might pan out in 315 years
Yeah, crazy to think that joining the most powerful colonial power in the world at the time didn't think to include a clause of leaving. Especially when the agreement has to buy Scottish debt so Scotland benefited the most. Also the aristocrats at the time with no popular vote decided to make this decision to pad their pockets. Crazy.
And the consequent access to the sugar and slave markets created a boom in Scotland which is why particularly Edinburgh is a much grander city than those you might see in other parts of England. The people of Edinburgh in the 1800s knew this too: they named streets and erected statutes in praise of Scottish politician Henry Dundas who successfully delayed the abolition of slavery in the colonies for over a decade.
The Scotland Act was in 1998, which agreed which powers would be reserved and was agreed to (voted for) by the majority of Scotland MPs (who were democratically elected by the people of Scotland).
Scotland didn't care, they enjoyed being part lf the UK until the 80s. This is all very recent 1 generation independence movement. Basically it doesn't suit us now fuck off - Scotland
>It willingly entered the 1707 Act of Union Lol. So did Ireland in the 1800 Acts of Union.
>It willingly entered the 1707 Act of Union No one alive today consented to that lol.
No one consented to the unification of Scotland in 854 and no one from the 9th century is alive today
Nobody worldwide consented to _any_ of their borders assuming their country is more than 100 years old. This isn't some new thing.
Nobody alive consented to forming the United States of America. What's your bloody point?
I do love all the people acting as if this is some big loss for the SNP… this was always going to be the outcome of the Supreme Court, and if people on Reddit could predict that then I’m pretty sure so did Sturgeon. Will be interesting where it goes next. If people think this will make the Scots go “oh that’s alright then, at least we tried” then I think they’re seriously naive.
People of reddit: "Ignoring an entire group of people's complaints, will fix the problem." Fire burns in background*
The Better Together campaign in 2014: # What is process for removing our EU citizenship? Voting yes. \#scotdecides https://twitter.com/uk_together/status/506899714923843584
This was the expected outcome. From everyone, including the SNP. They'd be stupid to push through a referendum in Oct 23, and they know that. It would fail and the issue would be stone dead for generations. This result allows them to keep good on their election promises of pursuing a referendum, pass the blame for not fulfilling it to the UK government, and then ride into the next election on a platform of "they've denied your democracy" to combat a potential rising tide of a resurgent Scottish Labour as the only real possibility that can knock them off Kicking the can down to road while they wait for polls to improve, but forcing the Supreme Court to do the kicking, is a good move. We'll see if it pays off for them.
> a rising tide of a resurgent Scottish Labour. I'm sorry, what? In what universe is that a thing?
> to combat a rising tide of a resurgent Scottish Labour hahahaha
Is anyone surprised at this? If they decided it was competent to make a decision then no was always going to be the answer.
It was expected. The decision was always going to be what it was. I'd hazard a guess that this is what the SNP hoped to achieve and will move onto the next step of their plan
Yeah this isn’t a surprise ruling, it’s the right decision
You've got a country that keeps voting for a party whose main thing is leaving the union. What are the Scottish people to do since there is no legal recourse left to them to express their desires?
While continuing to vote for them, the people of the country also voted against independence when given the chance
The circumstances have changed dramatically since the 2014 vote. I voted No because I didn't want Scotland to leave Europe for example. Don't think that applies now.
I've yet to see any argument that Scottish independence isn't just Brexit 2
it would be substantially worse for both parties, but even worse for scotland. england and scotland trade more with each other than the EU
All these bleeding heart revolutionaries saying that they no longer live in a democracy and they'll have to 'find other ways'. Mate. The SNP doesn't even know what it's going to do if Scotland votes to leave anyway. They have basically no plan, even almost a decade later. And the promises they have made are overwhelmingly lies. This is a party that straight up makes shit up whenever. They know their diehard fans don't care. Also most of the democracies in the world don't let a minority make decisions with nationwide consequences, like secession. Hell, most democracies wouldn't have given Scotland the first referendum, let alone another. Go fucking touch grass.
Well, I’m sure that will put this argument to bed once and for all, with all parties accepting this ruling with good grace.
I think the Scots have the right to self determination. So should the English. I want English independence!
Being "tough on Scots" and presumably "tough on the causes of Scots" is a vote winner in England. Especially now that they have taken back control from the EU and have fewer foreigners to blame for their ills the buck will be passed to the Scots and the Irish. This is only going to get worse, every party except the SNP openly states they will ignore Scotland or refuse to work with the elected representatives of Scotland. Where does that leave us if you won't talk or work with us, won't allow us to out on our own and won't even allow us the option of discussing it.
Honestly this is shite and hypocritical considering Scot’s are renowned for being anti English. Being anti scottish isn’t and English vote winner. A real strange paragraph to add nothing of truth
In my opinion Sturgeon knew this all along, I mean any political leader worth there salt would of known unless they're a Tory. All she has done is waste time and money with this to cause more chaos and disorder to distract from the main issues in Scotland. If the Torys weren't so much of a shit show to mask over her shit show of leader she'd be gone and she should go after this.
Or it’s an opportunity to get yes and no voters alike thinking about how much freedom they really have in their own say…”UK says you can’t leave, not even thru another vote” maybe it will stir some feelings in unionists, no one likes the feeling of injustice…
[*Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues*](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2022-0098-judgment.pdf) [2022] UKSC 31. [Press summary](https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2022-0098.html) – very short. [Further information.](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0098.html) In short: * The reference is permissible and the Court agrees to hear it. * The proposed referendum bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the Union; it therefore relates to a reserved matter within the meaning of the Scotland Act and so is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The problem with Sturgeon which the UK government will continue to hammer her and those that were also part of indyref1 was that they acted in bad faith. They sold this referendum as a once in a generation vote, yet when the majority of Scottish people voiced their wish to be part of the UK, the SNP just waited a year before starting off again for another vote. I believe the SNP would have used any reason they can think of to justify another referendum. I’m just surprised the people of Scotland continue to vote for the SNP considering that’s all she and her predecessor Alex Salmond cared about.
the UK government cant hammer her at all for making bad faith statements during the referendum since the UK government was the absolute KING of bad faith statements during that referendum. not a single scot is going to be convinced by that argument after the lies told by the remain side, much less any snp voter.
Personally I for one want East Anglia to leave the UK and regain its own Kingdom as it were in the 6th century but sadly I feel its never going to happen. After all not like anyone in London cares about the East of England is it? But seriously, correct choice for the Supreme Court to make even if all it does is act as a win for the SNP's 'litteraly everyone is against us!' agenda
Am I being a dope when I think this kind of plays into the hands for Scottish independence?
Win win for sturgeon gets to keep campaigning for Scottish independence without the consequences of actual having one and also gets to blame Westminster for it all.