This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Calum Carlyle 3 months, 3 weeks ago.
1 March 2019 at 10:15 pm #1163
An excerpt follows from the Wee Ginger Dug blog:
It’s being reported by the BBC that within the next few weeks Theresa May expects the Scottish Government to ask for a Section 30 order in order to hold another Scottish independence referendum, and that the Prime Minster has already decided to refuse.
If we have to beg London for permission just to ask ourselves the question, then that is the greatest argument of all in favour of Scottish independence. Westminster tells us that Scotland is a valued partner in a family of nations, but not so valued that it’s going to allow Scotland to decide its own future. If you keep your loved ones chained. If you refuse to allow them the autonomy to decide for themselves where they want to live. If you are determined that you and you alone have the sole right to choose where and how to live, then you don’t have a loved one. You have a hostage. You have a prisoner.
When you have a UK government minister who justifies the refusal by saying that “Once you’ve hit the iceberg, you’re all on it together,” you move from a rhetorical hostage situation to a literal one…
click the link to read the full article, and do share it about: https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/03/01/the-greatest-argument-of-all/0
2 March 2019 at 6:43 am #1164
Hi Calum, thanks for the new blog. Looks good.0
2 March 2019 at 6:25 pm #1168
We actually don’t need permission. It’s been established that we, the people, are sovereign in Scotland. If we decide to have a referendum, we can have one. We are ruled by consent. We can withdraw that at any time. And if enough of us do, what are they going to do?
Its by convincing us all that we can’t do anything, that they hold onto their power. Once we stop believing that, they loose their power.0
2 March 2019 at 10:36 pm #1173
I personally believe that as a signatory of the Treaty of Union, Scotland has the right to exit that treaty if its elected representatives so decide, currently that would be via Holyrood. The snag is that the current Holyrood assembly is limited by Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 within UK constitutional law, which means that to legislate on “reserved” matters, Scotland would basically have to do as Ireland did and declare independence from the UK, without any real officially demonstrated democratic backup, and hope for the best it can fend off the British army if needs be, and then get accepted by the international community as a new country. Many might say that’s a realistic proposition, especially in context of Brexit and all the rest.
I’ve recently seen it said that the Claim of Right 1989 was a constitutional piece of legislation, passed at Westminster, thereby showing that the Scots people have a legal right within the UK to be governed as they see fit, but it turns out this isn’t the case, looking at it a bit further.**
The whole premise of Westminster getting to decide what Scotland can and can’t decide for itself does come out of the Articles of Union which created the UK of Great Britain in the first place, so in my view it does stand to reason that to legally declare independence, we would have to leave the UK unilaterally to do so (i mean, that’s what declaring independence means!). It’s either circular logic, or it’s what they call a no-brainer. I’m in no way a lawyer though, but i wonder if those who are lawyers would even be able to agree on this stuff.0
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.