Should Scotland be an independent country?

[Unknown user]

21 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Just better than, is that the goal ? 

 

You can't just leap from thing I haven't said to thing I haven't said and act like you're tearing my argument apart!

 

Away and pretend you were aghast at Boris and the Tories all along

 

 

[Dazo]

16 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

You can't just leap from thing I haven't said to thing I haven't said and act like you're tearing my argument apart!

 

Away and pretend you were aghast at Boris and the Tories all along

 

 

Jeezo Smithee that’s some leap. 
 

Incidentally I’ve never pretended I’m against the tories. 👍 

[manaliveits105]

9 hours ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Nope because the powers that could and wanted to deliver it did. Anyone with half a brain (granted not many yessers have that) can see this is just a pathetic Catalonia style stunt by the Nationalists.

Hopefully same result - Murrells arrested 

[That thing you do]

11 hours ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Nope because the powers that could and wanted to deliver it did. Anyone with half a brain (granted not many yessers have that) can see this is just a pathetic Catalonia style stunt by the Nationalists.

I work with Generalitat Cataluna (their government) and the Cataluna situation is very different to Scotland.

 

Scotland is historically recognized as a sov nation, is joined by a treaty with England (supposedly) voluntarily and therefore has a right to recind the treaty and a right to self determination enshrined in international law.

 

Cataluna never has been recognised as a state/nation though the peoples have always had distinct identity its always been part of spain. The spanish constitution doesnt permit any part of spain to vote to break away. It has no recognition in international law. 

 

The supreme court argument is as the current scottish parliament reopened with the statement "the scottish parliament, last sitting in 1707 is hereby reconvened" enshrined in law that new scot parl and old scot parl are the same.

 

That being the case The Scottish Parliament in international law has the right to consult the people as they are sovereign in Scotland and they voted in a majority referendum group.

 

UK argues it has ultimate say for UK but the UK has no written constitution and UK cannot claim to have ultimate say on Scotland because of seperate scots law and the parliament we have now being recognised as the same prior to noref 1707. and a section 30 is not a legal requirement its more an intend to abide by the result. 

 

So this isnt a stunt its a thought out process to establish if one signatory of a treaty is allowed to call a vote on it because it chooses to or if the supreme court is going to argue it doesnt in which case Scotlands enshrined right to repeal the union and to self determination is then decided de facto by election, which, would have to be honored by the way as its the only mechanism Scotland is being given.

 

The analogy here is like the UK asking the european court if it had the right to a referendum on leaving the EU and the court saying no. Which would leave a majority leave MEP election vote as a defacto Brexit.

 

Both EU and UK claim to be voluntary unions joined by treaty. Only one treats its members accordingly.

 

Why do you think Thatcher said a majority for the nationalists in scottish seats would be a vote to leave? Because she is 100% right it would be and was at the time and still is the only mechanism if UK gov Obfuscates.

Edited July 23, 2022 by That thing you do

[i wish jj was my dad]

It's a good point Scotland is SUPPOSED to be a sovereign nation in a union of partners. If that is true then the country should always have the democratic right to consult our citizens about whether we want to remain in that union. That principle has to be respected if we are truly an equal partner in the union. 

FWIW (hopefully, Dazo picks this up this time), I think that reopening the constitutional debate now is outrageous opportunism by the SNP leadership designed to take advantage of the current world crisis being exacerbated in this country by the most crooked, incompetent and self serving shower of charlatans ever to be in power in the UK.  They should be concentrating all their efforts on supporting the people who most need it, getting the country back off our knees and responding effectively to the humanitarian crisis. They aren't and that is unforgivable. 

However, no matter how unprincipled they are being, the union of equals should always give Scotland the right to choose to leave if the people want it. So they are entitled to ask the question. And Brexit gives them the excuse to ask. 

[jambomjm74]

49 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

I work with Generalitat Cataluna (their government) and the Cataluna situation is very different to Scotland.

 

Scotland is historically recognized as a sov nation, is joined by a treaty with England (supposedly) voluntarily and therefore has a right to recind the treaty and a right to self determination enshrined in international law.

 

Cataluna never has been recognised as a state/nation though the peoples have always had distinct identity its always been part of spain. The spanish constitution doesnt permit any part of spain to vote to break away. It has no recognition in international law. 

 

The supreme court argument is as the current scottish parliament reopened with the statement "the scottish parliament, last sitting in 1707 is hereby reconvened" enshrined in law that new scot parl and old scot parl are the same.

 

That being the case The Scottish Parliament in international law has the right to consult the people as they are sovereign in Scotland and they voted in a majority referendum group.

 

UK argues it has ultimate say for UK but the UK has no written constitution and UK cannot claim to have ultimate say on Scotland because of seperate scots law and the parliament we have now being recognised as the same prior to noref 1707. and a section 30 is not a legal requirement its more an intend to abide by the result. 

 

So this isnt a stunt its a thought out process to establish if one signatory of a treaty is allowed to call a vote on it because it chooses to or if the supreme court is going to argue it doesnt in which case Scotlands enshrined right to repeal the union and to self determination is then decided de facto by election, which, would have to be honored by the way as its the only mechanism Scotland is being given.

 

The analogy here is like the UK asking the european court if it had the right to a referendum on leaving the EU and the court saying no. Which would leave a majority leave MEP election vote as a defacto Brexit.

 

Both EU and UK claim to be voluntary unions joined by treaty. Only one treats its members accordingly.

 

Why do you think Thatcher said a majority for the nationalists in scottish seats would be a vote to leave? Because she is 100% right it would be and was at the time and still is the only mechanism if UK gov Obfuscates.

A U.K. election is a U.K. election, political parties cannot set the rules they abide by them. 
The whole agreement of a referendum is a shared principle, where both sides must abide by a shared agreement. This is an agreed principle.. it is fair to assume that now isn’t a great time (covid:brexit:cost of living:WW3). 
The legal and political noise is being made to change this principle, where agreement is required. 
As far as I can see, the SNP has been hell bent on another referendum since the minute the result of the referendum landed, in other words they failed to abide by the result… so please don’t pretend that one side suddenly has some moral high ground. 
just one question are you Spanish, your writing style is strange, big words and statements but with almost non existent punctuation.

[i wish jj was my dad]

4 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

A U.K. election is a U.K. election, political parties cannot set the rules they abide by them. 
The whole agreement of a referendum is a shared principle, where both sides must abide by a shared agreement. This is an agreed principle.. it is fair to assume that now isn’t a great time (covid:brexit:cost of living:WW3). 
The legal and political noise is being made to change this principle, where agreement is required. 
As far as I can see, the SNP has been hell bent on another referendum since the minute the result of the referendum landed, in other words they failed to abide by the result… so please don’t pretend that one side suddenly has some moral high ground. 
just one question are you Spanish, your writing style is strange, big words and statements but with almost non existent punctuation.

For balance, the SNP were onto plums for another referendum after 2014 and they knew it. Then there was quite a significant material change of circumstances. And one that certainly shifted my thinking.  Doesn't that count?

And I hope my English and punctuation is up to your standards. 

Edited July 23, 2022 by i wish jj was my dad
Missed a ? Didn't want pulled up.

[jambomjm74]

Just now, i wish jj was my dad said:

For balance, the SNP were onto plums for another referendum after 2014 and they knew it. Then there was quite a significant material change of circumstances. And one that certainly shifted my thinking.  Doesn't that count. 

And I hope my English and punctuation is up to your standards. 

Brexit is certainly a material change, but you could easily make the point that the first campaign was fought on a leaving the EU… so why the big song and dance … and also why the need to leave one Union to join another. To me independence is about local govt making local decisions.. being closer to the issues and being fairer not having decisions dictated by powers at be, miles from home.  
The change of tact, to me points of Nationalism and anti westminster at any cost. Finding any reason to advance the cause. 

It seems to me another promise, that in the real world wouldn’t be delivered .. or at what cost and in what shape. 
I’m all for local govt but It is very clear to me that you need strong partnerships / unions to work for you and not barriers to trade.. put simply both EU and U.K. mkts are important but the U.K. one is just so much more so on £s size and linked and any barriers to this would come with consequences… which would weaken Scotland and lower its opportunities to have a fairer society… 

[jambomjm74]

12 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

For balance, the SNP were onto plums for another referendum after 2014 and they knew it. Then there was quite a significant material change of circumstances. And one that certainly shifted my thinking.  Doesn't that count. 

And I hope my English and punctuation is up to your standards. 

You seem fine, the other chaps writing style is slightly left field. 

[Konrad von Carstein]

55 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

A U.K. election is a U.K. election, political parties cannot set the rules they abide by them. 
The whole agreement of a referendum is a shared principle, where both sides must abide by a shared agreement. This is an agreed principle.. it is fair to assume that now isn’t a great time (covid:brexit:cost of living:WW3). 
The legal and political noise is being made to change this principle, where agreement is required. 
As far as I can see, the SNP has been hell bent on another referendum since the minute the result of the referendum landed, in other words they failed to abide by the result… so please don’t pretend that one side suddenly has some moral high ground. 
just one question are you Spanish, your writing style is strange, big words and statements but with almost non existent punctuation.

It's a football fans message board not a spelling and grammar club.

The guy put together a decent post there was no need for your final para (that started with a non capitalised word)

[jambomjm74]

11 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

It's a football fans message board not a spelling and grammar club.

The guy put together a decent post there was no need for your final para (that started with a non capitalised word)

I agree with your first post, it’s a football fans forum - the chaps posting style was very different to others… I just asked whether he was Spanish or not ? 

[Roxy Hearts]

1 hour ago, jambomjm74 said:

You seem fine, the other chaps writing style is slightly left field. 

It was a good post though. Better than most on here. The legal route(if you can call it that) is acting in respect by the SNP. It's more than the establishment shows Scotland and its people!

[jambomjm74]

5 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It was a good post though. Better than most on here. The legal route(if you can call it that) is acting in respect by the SNP. It's more than the establishment shows Scotland and its people!

I don’t agree .. his post had some startling legal inaccuracies.. it was made to sound factual by including some emotive words and false references. 

The one about Scotland having the right, without a sect 30 act, if that was a reality this route would have been taken. It is clear that the SNP are pushing every option available to them and they don’t have many legal/legitimate  options.
The “establishment” isn’t breaking any laws by not agreeing to a referendum at this time (you can argue both ways the right and wrong)  the sect 30 requires agreement and that’s not there and unlikely in the near term. There are legitimate points for both sides, it’s not black and white. 
The SNP failed to respect the referendum result, has sought a re-run from day 1 and we live in a neverendum.. which isn’t a great place. 
 

[Roxy Hearts]

1 minute ago, jambomjm74 said:

I don’t agree .. his post had some startling legal inaccuracies.. it was made to sound factual by including some emotive words and false references. 

The one about Scotland having the right, without a sect 30 act, if that was a reality this route would have been taken. It is clear that the SNP are pushing every option available to them and they don’t have many legal/legitimate  options.
The “establishment” isn’t breaking any laws by not agreeing to a referendum at this time (you can argue both ways the right and wrong)  the sect 30 requires agreement and that’s not there and unlikely in the near term. There are legitimate points for both sides, it’s not black and white. 
The SNP failed to respect the referendum result, has sought a re-run from day 1 and we live in a neverendum.. which isn’t a great place. 
 

I wasn't having a go bud but some of what the poster put is correct. Scotland can leave this union anytime. We are sovereign and have voted for parties to give us a referendum.

 

It would appear that the UK legal system is in place to prevent us from leaving and a little undemocratic don't you think? As we know Scots law is different from English law but UK law, whatever that is, would appear to be a pursuit against Scottish interests. I don't trust the British establishment and for good reason. You support it then fair enough.

[jambomjm74]

12 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I wasn't having a go bud but some of what the poster put is correct. Scotland can leave this union anytime. We are sovereign and have voted for parties to give us a referendum.

 

It would appear that the UK legal system is in place to prevent us from leaving and a little undemocratic don't you think? As we know Scots law is different from English law but UK law, whatever that is, would appear to be a pursuit against Scottish interests. I don't trust the British establishment and for good reason. You support it then fair enough.

Referendum are exceptional in nature and should be run with agreement of both parties … that’s what is currently in place.

The time frame since previous and current climate are not in favour. 
Yes folks have voted for the SNP, that doesn’t allow for them to run a legal referendum, that requires agreement or a change to the agreed rules. 
You also have a split in opinion in Scotland .. so it’s not like the majority want a referendum currently.. 
Its a mess for sure, neither side of the coin is happy with where we are … 

 

 

[Unknown user]

49 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

The SNP failed to respect the referendum result, has sought a re-run from day 1 and we live in a neverendum.. which isn’t a great place. 

 

 

The snp exist to try and achieve independence. "They're trying to achieve independence!" is the weakest accusation - we know!

And they respected the result of the referendum just fine, no one's declared independence.

 

The reason we're not in a great place is because we're going down the toilet with a corrupt, nasty, uncaring government in Westminster that doesn't care about Scotland.

 

And if that does change, it'll be very temporary.

 

Soon we'll have the 4th Tory prime minister in 12 years, the 15th in the last century.

 

But there have only ever been 6 Labour prime ministers. 

 

We'll get what England gives us, and, if we're very lucky, every now and again it might be a government that cares about Scotland. But it won't be, it'll be Tories most of the time, it's what England does.

 

 

The SNP democratically campaigning for the reason they exist is something you'll just need to get over, this isn't going away.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Smithee

[Roxy Hearts]

42 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

Referendum are exceptional in nature and should be run with agreement of both parties … that’s what is currently in place.

The time frame since previous and current climate are not in favour. 
Yes folks have voted for the SNP, that doesn’t allow for them to run a legal referendum, that requires agreement or a change to the agreed rules. 
You also have a split in opinion in Scotland .. so it’s not like the majority want a referendum currently.. 
Its a mess for sure, neither side of the coin is happy with where we are … 

 

 

I didn't want a referendum just now either but the way Westminster establishment acts really annoys me. We can't vote anyone out so I now want a referendum to get out of this mess. Surely it's more democratic to be able to vote out or in a government of your choice.

 

I'm also fed up with it's the whole of the UK mantra as that's the problem!

[i wish jj was my dad]

31 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I didn't want a referendum just now either but the way Westminster establishment acts really annoys me. We can't vote anyone out so I now want a referendum to get out of this mess. Surely it's more democratic to be able to vote out or in a government of your choice.

 

I'm also fed up with it's the whole of the UK mantra as that's the problem!

That's where I am to an extent. England has essentially installed UKIP as the government of the day with the likes of Johnson, Patel, Truss, Dorries and Rees Mogg running the show. Just how much worse can it get? 

Even if the timing of calling for a referendum is quite dishonourable, the country should always have the right at its disposal. 

[Roxy Hearts]

18 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

That's where I am to an extent. England has essentially installed UKIP as the government of the day with the likes of Johnson, Patel, Truss, Dorries and Rees Mogg running the show. Just how much worse can it get? 

Even if the timing of calling for a referendum is quite dishonourable, the country should always have the right at its disposal. 

Agreed. The UK is not a good place, politically, at the moment.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I witnessed another fine example of Scottish inclusiveness and forward thinking and enlightenment.  Whilst on a very busy bus earlier 2 rather  drunk Scottish  middle aged guys got on. Both shabbily dressed and reeking of alcohol.  They also had a couple carrier bags filled with booze.  The bus was very busy and people were pushing against each other.  At one point a pregnant woman and her boyfriend ( i assume he was) were trying to get off but a few men wouldn't or couldn't budge.  Anyway they all actually got off not before one of the  Scottish  drunks shouted " those Polish ^^^^ wouldn't move for that poor lassie"   Delightful. 

[Auld Reekin']

50 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

I witnessed another fine example of Scottish inclusiveness and forward thinking and enlightenment.  Whilst on a very busy bus earlier 2 rather  drunk Scottish  middle aged guys got on. Both shabbily dressed and reeking of alcohol.  They also had a couple carrier bags filled with booze.  The bus was very busy and people were pushing against each other.  At one point a pregnant woman and her boyfriend ( i assume he was) were trying to get off but a few men wouldn't or couldn't budge.  Anyway they all actually got off not before one of the  Scottish  drunks shouted " those Polish ^^^^ wouldn't move for that poor lassie"   Delightful. 

 

Scotland has idiots, racists, erseholes, bigots, nutters, and drunks / junkies, just like any other country in the world, therefore I'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make. I don't know any Scottish person, whether in favour of independence or not, who thinks that Scottish people are any better or superior to the people of any other country. My big problem is with those hard-line unionists with a huge vested-interest in trying to make out that Scottish people are WORSE than anyone else and that Scotland itself is a basket-case shithole that could not and should not ever be allowed to fully govern its own affairs.

 

They can go feck themselves. 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Auld Reekin'

[Roxy Hearts]

6 minutes ago, Auld Reekin' said:

 

Scotland has idiots, racists, erseholes, bigots, nutters, and drunks / junkies, just like any other country in the world, therefore I'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make. I don't know any Scottish person, whether in favour of independence or not, who thinks that Scottish people are any better or superior to the people of any other country. My big problem is with those hard-line unionists with a huge vested-interest in trying to make out that Scottish people are WORSE than anyone else and that Scotland itself is a basket-case shithole that could not and should not ever be allowed to fully govern its own affairs.

 

They can go feck themselves. 

Correct!

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

I witnessed another fine example of Scottish inclusiveness and forward thinking and enlightenment.  Whilst on a very busy bus earlier 2 rather  drunk Scottish  middle aged guys got on. Both shabbily dressed and reeking of alcohol.  They also had a couple carrier bags filled with booze.  The bus was very busy and people were pushing against each other.  At one point a pregnant woman and her boyfriend ( i assume he was) were trying to get off but a few men wouldn't or couldn't budge.  Anyway they all actually got off not before one of the  Scottish  drunks shouted " those Polish ^^^^ wouldn't move for that poor lassie"   Delightful. 

 

I've worked with 2 Polish lassies who originally came here to study. They both decided they loved it here and decided to stay after finishing their studies, specifically mentioning that they found the people here really friendly and welcoming. Thankfully most people here are not like the drunken aresholes you encountered today.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

I've worked with 2 Polish lassies who originally came here to study. They both decided they loved it here and decided to stay after finishing their studies, specifically mentioning that they found the people here really friendly and welcoming. Thankfully most people here are not like the drunken aresholes you encountered today.

it was disgusting really

[jack D and coke]

I know this has about as much to do with Scottish independence as some drunk dicks on a bus but hey ho…

The actual nick of this country 🤣

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by jack D and coke

[jack D and coke]

Tbf that’s one of the funniest things I e watched for a while. 
Jesus Christ man  

[Dazo]

I don’t think it’s that bad. The UK are doing a good thing here.  

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

I know this has about as much to do with Scottish independence as some drunk dicks on a bus but hey ho…

The actual nick of this country 🤣

 

 

[jack D and coke]

30 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

9 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

 

😃

[The Old Tolbooth]

On 23/07/2022 at 07:16, That thing you do said:

I work with Generalitat Cataluna (their government) and the Cataluna situation is very different to Scotland.

 

Scotland is historically recognized as a sov nation, is joined by a treaty with England (supposedly) voluntarily and therefore has a right to recind the treaty and a right to self determination enshrined in international law.

 

Cataluna never has been recognised as a state/nation though the peoples have always had distinct identity its always been part of spain. The spanish constitution doesnt permit any part of spain to vote to break away. It has no recognition in international law. 

 

The supreme court argument is as the current scottish parliament reopened with the statement "the scottish parliament, last sitting in 1707 is hereby reconvened" enshrined in law that new scot parl and old scot parl are the same.

 

That being the case The Scottish Parliament in international law has the right to consult the people as they are sovereign in Scotland and they voted in a majority referendum group.

 

UK argues it has ultimate say for UK but the UK has no written constitution and UK cannot claim to have ultimate say on Scotland because of seperate scots law and the parliament we have now being recognised as the same prior to noref 1707. and a section 30 is not a legal requirement its more an intend to abide by the result. 

 

So this isnt a stunt its a thought out process to establish if one signatory of a treaty is allowed to call a vote on it because it chooses to or if the supreme court is going to argue it doesnt in which case Scotlands enshrined right to repeal the union and to self determination is then decided de facto by election, which, would have to be honored by the way as its the only mechanism Scotland is being given.

 

The analogy here is like the UK asking the european court if it had the right to a referendum on leaving the EU and the court saying no. Which would leave a majority leave MEP election vote as a defacto Brexit.

 

Both EU and UK claim to be voluntary unions joined by treaty. Only one treats its members accordingly.

 

Why do you think Thatcher said a majority for the nationalists in scottish seats would be a vote to leave? Because she is 100% right it would be and was at the time and still is the only mechanism if UK gov Obfuscates.

 

Excellent post, it'll surely have a few frothing at the mouth on here 

 

P.S. is my grammar okay?  

[manaliveits105]

Nah it’s a Smurfbot 

[Konrad von Carstein]

 

1 hour ago, manaliveits105 said:

Nah it’s a Smurfbot 

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

Starmer the Tory, with his tactile henchman.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

[manaliveits105]

Labour aw oor the place 

[Ainsley Harriott]

On 23/07/2022 at 07:16, That thing you do said:

I work with Generalitat Cataluna (their government) and the Cataluna situation is very different to Scotland.

 

Scotland is historically recognized as a sov nation, is joined by a treaty with England (supposedly) voluntarily and therefore has a right to recind the treaty and a right to self determination enshrined in international law.

 

Cataluna never has been recognised as a state/nation though the peoples have always had distinct identity its always been part of spain. The spanish constitution doesnt permit any part of spain to vote to break away. It has no recognition in international law. 

 

The supreme court argument is as the current scottish parliament reopened with the statement "the scottish parliament, last sitting in 1707 is hereby reconvened" enshrined in law that new scot parl and old scot parl are the same.

 

That being the case The Scottish Parliament in international law has the right to consult the people as they are sovereign in Scotland and they voted in a majority referendum group.

 

UK argues it has ultimate say for UK but the UK has no written constitution and UK cannot claim to have ultimate say on Scotland because of seperate scots law and the parliament we have now being recognised as the same prior to noref 1707. and a section 30 is not a legal requirement its more an intend to abide by the result. 

 

So this isnt a stunt its a thought out process to establish if one signatory of a treaty is allowed to call a vote on it because it chooses to or if the supreme court is going to argue it doesnt in which case Scotlands enshrined right to repeal the union and to self determination is then decided de facto by election, which, would have to be honored by the way as its the only mechanism Scotland is being given.

 

The analogy here is like the UK asking the european court if it had the right to a referendum on leaving the EU and the court saying no. Which would leave a majority leave MEP election vote as a defacto Brexit.

 

Both EU and UK claim to be voluntary unions joined by treaty. Only one treats its members accordingly.

 

Why do you think Thatcher said a majority for the nationalists in scottish seats would be a vote to leave? Because she is 100% right it would be and was at the time and still is the only mechanism if UK gov Obfuscates.

Who actually recognises Scotland as sovereign out with our own islands. Soctland isn't a sovereign nation in the international community. Here is a list of countries acknowledged by the UN. Scotland isn't 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

[Dazo]

11 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Starmer the Tory, with his tactile henchman.

At least he argued his case. 😳

[Ray Gin]

12 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Starmer the Tory, with his tactile henchman.

 

Liverpool is a strange name for a woman.

 

 

[jack D and coke]

Starmer another one who looks shocked when a human being speaks to him and he doesn’t have well practiced lines to trot out.

To think that’s wee Anus’s gaffer  

[JudyJudyJudy]

12 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Starmer the Tory, with his tactile henchman.

Brilliant ! Well done that woman . Told u all he’s a snake 

[manaliveits105]

1 hour ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Who actually recognises Scotland as sovereign out with our own islands. Soctland isn't a sovereign nation in the international community. Here is a list of countries acknowledged by the UN. Scotland isn't 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

Ach the UN are just bloody tories though 

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Who actually recognises Scotland as sovereign out with our own islands.

 

FIFA, UEFA, Commonwealth Games Federation, World Rugby etc.

[That thing you do]

1 hour ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Who actually recognises Scotland as sovereign out with our own islands. Soctland isn't a sovereign nation in the international community. Here is a list of countries acknowledged by the UN. Scotland isn't 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

I meant. As it was a sovereign nation prior to 1707 it has a bonafide right to self determination. UK is a treaty where soverignty is "pooled" in order to have the UK as a recognised state to represent Scotland and England. 

Which may sound familiar as pooling soverignty was seen by Brexiteers as Brussels dictats.

This doesnt however take away the right for either treaty signatory to recind the treaty.

The argument is if Scotland chooses to vote on ending its treaty who represents the people? 

Scotland is not a prisoner of England or the rest of the UK. If UK gov acts like Scotland is its possession and refuses a vote, a majority at GE becoming a defacto referendum would be viable under international law.

Im not arguing people shouldnt be allowed to be pro union, but I believe its our right as a people to have a vote when we choose and circumstances justifiably dictate it, whatever the outcome is.

[The Real Maroonblood]

5 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

I meant. As it was a sovereign nation prior to 1707 it has a bonafide right to self determination. UK is a treaty where soverignty is "pooled" in order to have the UK as a recognised state to represent Scotland and England. 

Which may sound familiar as pooling soverignty was seen by Brexiteers as Brussels dictats.

This doesnt however take away the right for either treaty signatory to recind the treaty.

The argument is if Scotland chooses to vote on ending its treaty who represents the people? 

Scotland is not a prisoner of England or the rest of the UK. If UK gov acts like Scotland is its possession and refuses a vote, a majority at GE becoming a defacto referendum would be viable under international law.

Im not arguing people shouldnt be allowed to be pro union, but I believe its our right as a people to have a vote when we choose and circumstances justifiably dictate it, whatever the outcome is.

Excellent post.

[Ainsley Harriott]

41 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Excellent post.

He's not going to shag you 

[Ainsley Harriott]

1 hour ago, manaliveits105 said:

Ach the UN are just bloody tories though 

👍😂😂😂

[The Real Maroonblood]

21 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

He's not going to shag you 

The post really hurt you which is pleasing.

[Konrad von Carstein]

24 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

👍😂😂😂

He's no gonny shag you....

 

 

[That thing you do]

On 23/07/2022 at 04:03, jambomjm74 said:

I don’t agree .. his post had some startling legal inaccuracies.. it was made to sound factual by including some emotive words and false references. 

The one about Scotland having the right, without a sect 30 act, if that was a reality this route would have been taken. It is clear that the SNP are pushing every option available to them and they don’t have many legal/legitimate  options.
The “establishment” isn’t breaking any laws by not agreeing to a referendum at this time (you can argue both ways the right and wrong)  the sect 30 requires agreement and that’s not there and unlikely in the near term. There are legitimate points for both sides, it’s not black and white. 
The SNP failed to respect the referendum result, has sought a re-run from day 1 and we live in a neverendum.. which isn’t a great place. 
 

Have you actually read the section 30 document? 

 

 

[Ray Gin]

31 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

He's no gonny shag you....

 

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure.