UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

The real issue here is probably not whether the UK parliament has the right to issue A50, but rather what rights it removes from the Scottish people. If the UK has devolved certain powers to Scottish parliament that would be affected by issuing A50 then they might have an argument to say they can't until they remove that power again. For example the Scottish parliament has devolved powers for agricultural, fishing and forestry. They could hence argue that by issuing A50 that the UK government is overstretching its bounds because it no longer has the power to change these (which it inevitably will do). Either the UK government would then have to de-devolve these pieces of legislation which at that point you might as well hand Scotland it's independence (and I might go up there to help them out if it keeps them and me in the EU!)

[

I don't disagree with any of this, but at the end of the day, Scotland is part of the UK, and Parliament is sovereign. An act of Parliament could move this in Westminster's favour.

In all honesty, Westminster is handling Scotland quite badly IMO when it comes to Brexit. No surprise there.

Even without the independence issue, I don't know what Westminster's game is.

For example, London has always used the excuse of EU law as a reason not to devolve VAT and fisheries to Edinburgh.

Now that we're coming out the EU, Edinburgh has asked about these being devolved...

London's response was No....

**BaronIveagh**

Whirlwind wrote:

The real issue here is probably not whether the UK parliament has the right to issue A50, but rather what rights it removes from the Scottish people. If the UK has devolved certain powers to Scottish parliament that would be affected by issuing A50 then they might have an argument to say they can't until they remove that power again. For example the Scottish parliament has devolved powers for agricultural, fishing and forestry. They could hence argue that by issuing A50 that the UK government is overstretching its bounds because it no longer has the power to change these (which it inevitably will do). Either the UK government would then have to de-devolve these pieces of legislation which at that point you might as well hand Scotland it's independence (and I might go up there to help them out if it keeps them and me in the EU!)

I foresee an even more violent response from the public than Brexit is causing if England were to try and wrest devolved powers back from Scotland.

Smells like we're back to the Plantagenets, with MPs replacing Kings.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but at the end of the day, Scotland is part of the UK,

And Scotland would like a word about that....

**Ffyllotek**

BaronIveagh wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but at the end of the day, Scotland is part of the UK,

And Scotland would like a word about that....

Already had that 'once in a lifetime' conversation in 2014. All need to move on.

**Herzlos**

And then a material changed happened.

**SomeRandomEvilGuy**

BaronIveagh wrote:And Scotland would like a word about that....

If self-determination was so important to them they'd have voted to leave the Union.

Herzlos wrote:
And then a material changed happened.

You can't have another referendum every time the SNP feels the situation has changed enough.

Scotland voted to stay within the United Kingdom knowing that England has the most votes in any election or referendum that covers both of them.

**welshhoppo**

I'm just waiting for the SNP to get annoyed when they hold a referendum, it comes to a leave vote. And then gets blocked by Parliament using the High Court ruling as precedent :p

It would be quite hilarious.

Also, Scotland knew there was a good chance of a referendum, they should have considered there was the potential for leaving.

**tneva82**

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
You can't have another referendum every time the SNP feels the situation has changed enough.

Scotland voted to stay within the United Kingdom knowing that England has the most votes in any election or referendum that covers both of them.

Things change. Just because something was decided once doesn't mean it cannot be undecided. Brexit being prime example. On your logic Brexit shouldn't have been allowed as it was already decided UK is part of EU. No second thoughts.

**Whirlwind**

welshhoppo wrote:
I'm just waiting for the SNP to get annoyed when they hold a referendum, it comes to a leave vote. And then gets blocked by Parliament using the High Court ruling as precedent :p

It would be quite hilarious.

Also, Scotland knew there was a good chance of a referendum, they should have considered there was the potential for leaving.

Didn't the decision to hold an EU referendum come in the manifesto pledge though. That would have meant there was no concrete evidence at the time of the Scottish referendum. Also I thought the stay in the UK argument included remaining in the EU (whereas there was uncertainty whether they could if they left the UK)?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

tneva82 wrote:
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
You can't have another referendum every time the SNP feels the situation has changed enough.

Scotland voted to stay within the United Kingdom knowing that England has the most votes in any election or referendum that covers both of them.

Things change. Just because something was decided once doesn't mean it cannot be undecided. Brexit being prime example. On your logic Brexit shouldn't have been allowed as it was already decided UK is part of EU. No second thoughts.

Exactly.

The 1970s EEC is completely different to the EU of 2016.

**Ketara**

Oh no. Not this again. Not another three pages on the SNP and indyref 2!

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't disagree with any of this, but at the end of the day, Scotland is part of the UK, and Parliament is sovereign. An act of Parliament could move this in Westminster's favour.

De-devolving aspects that they were promised to be able to keep in 2014 would be the fastest way to extract Scotland from the UK. People won't forget or forgive promises broken that quickly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
Oh no. Not this again. Not another three pages on the SNP and indyref 2!

Lol, of course most of the debate has been round the houses a few times now anyway. Perhaps we could stick the question as to whether issuing A50 would breach any of the rights of Scotland because of it's devolved powers?

**SomeRandomEvilGuy**

tneva82 wrote:

Things change. Just because something was decided once doesn't mean it cannot be undecided. Brexit being prime example. On your logic Brexit shouldn't have been allowed as it was already decided UK is part of EU. No second thoughts.

Two years is too short a time for them to decide they don't want to be a part of the UK anymore. Two years ago the Scottish people voted to remain in the UK. The SNP seemingly wants to have revotes whenever possible. That I have a problem with. The British public never voted to be a part of the EU and would not have at the time we voted to join the EEC.

**A Town Called Malus**

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Things change. Just because something was decided once doesn't mean it cannot be undecided. Brexit being prime example. On your logic Brexit shouldn't have been allowed as it was already decided UK is part of EU. No second thoughts.

Two years is too short a time for them to decide they don't want to be a part of the UK anymore. Two years ago the Scottish people voted to remain in the UK. The SNP seemingly wants to have revotes whenever possible. That I have a problem with. The British public never voted to be a part of the EU and would not have at the time we voted to join the EEC.

The time since the last referendum has nothing to do with it, major changes to the UK and its position in the world which will affect Scotland do.

**jouso**

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Things change. Just because something was decided once doesn't mean it cannot be undecided. Brexit being prime example. On your logic Brexit shouldn't have been allowed as it was already decided UK is part of EU. No second thoughts.

Two years is too short a time for them to decide they don't want to be a part of the UK anymore. Two years ago the Scottish people voted to remain in the UK.

Two years ago the remain (in the UK) camp used the threat that leaving the UK would leave Scotland out of the EU.

Now, well, they're going out regardless.

I know at least one Edinburgher that voted stay that would now be voting leave thanks to Brexit.

Take back control should work for everyone doesn't it?

**welshhoppo**

Except Scotland had the chance and chose to remain with the UK. Sure leaving is a major political shift, but you could also say a UKIP government would be too. Does That mean they get a revote every time a government puts out a policy they don't like?

**jouso**

welshhoppo wrote:
Except Scotland had the chance and chose to remain with the UK. Sure leaving is a major political shift, but you could also say a UKIP government would be too. Does That mean they get a revote every time a government puts out a policy they don't like?

It was a central issue during indyref1.

It sure qualifies as the same "we did not sign for this" rethoric you could hear from the Brexit campaign.

**Whirlwind**

welshhoppo wrote:
Except Scotland had the chance and chose to remain with the UK. Sure leaving is a major political shift, but you could also say a UKIP government would be too. Does That mean they get a revote every time a government puts out a policy they don't like?

The thing is you either have Direct Democracy or you have a Representative Democracy. It's not reasonable to pick and choose the one you want at any one time to get the result you want. If you accept Direct Democracy for Brexit then it is only balanced to have Direct Democracy for other issues. It is however the flaw with Direct Democracy; you have to vote on everything pretty much all the time because things will and do change.

I find it ironic however that the *anecdotally* people that support Remain generally seem to support a second Scottish independence referendum vs those that those that support Brexit generally oppose the idea.

**notprop**

The Scots are coming (up again)! The Scots are coming (up again)!

Serious can't we have some sort of alarm that warns normal folk the can avoid the thread for three or four pages.

We need a UK Govt Tsar for this sort of thing.....or a sleep timer.

**Whirlwind**

notprop wrote:
The Scots are coming (up again)! The Scots are coming (up again)!

Serious can't we have some sort of alarm that warns normal folk the can avoid the thread for three or four pages.

We need a UK Govt Tsar for this sort of thing.....or a sleep timer.

Well it is a UK politics thread so as Scotland is still (for the moment

) in the UK it is not a surprise. If we carry on the way we are I'm sure they'll have their independence soon enough and then we can have a separate England/Wales/NI/Cornwall politics thread and Scotland can have their own too. So vote YES for indyref2 so people can stop complaining that Scotland has a part to play in UK politics...

**notprop**

I can tell you appreciate the opportunity to repeat the same old guff ad nauseum but it's as boring as hell to come back to discuss something a bit more current that a 2 year old provincial issue.

**Whirlwind**

notprop wrote:
I can tell you appreciate the opportunity to repeat the same old guff ad nauseum but it's as boring as hell to come back to discuss something a bit more current that a 2 year old provincial issue.

No this was a new idea and improvement surely! Get an independent Scotland and get an independent dakka thread. Surely that makes both sides happy. One that can talk about Scotland politics freely and one that doesn't have to whine about hearing about it!

Anyway in other news from the BBC

Prosecutors considering EU referendum complaint

The Crown Prosecution Service is considering a complaint that voters in the EU referendum were misled by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns in breach of electoral law.

The allegations against the campaigns - centering on high-profile claims that Brexit could free up an extra £350m to be spent a week on the NHS and the UK was powerless to stop Turkey joining the EU - were lodged with the Director of Public Prosecutions by a group of lawyers and citizens backed by Professor Bob Watt, an expert in electoral law at the University of Buckingham.

If successful it could see charges brought against leading Leave campaigners with the prospect of up to a year's imprisonment if they are found guilty.

The CPS said it had received the complaint and was considering it.

Prof Watt said DPP Alison Saunders had now referred the matter to her electoral law team to investigate.

That could be all the Brexiter MPs in jail and NF; that would be funny and poetic. Lie to the populace, go straight to Jail, do not pick up £350m.

**BaronIveagh**

welshhoppo wrote:
Except Scotland had the chance and chose to remain with the UK.

Looking at the Brexit result, they also chose to remain with the EU. Now we have two mutually exclusive results. Hmmm.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
Oh no. Not this again. Not another three pages on the SNP and indyref 2!

If we ever face each other across a wargaming table, then I'll be sure to start talking about Alex Salmond as a distraction technique

Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:
The Scots are coming (up again)! The Scots are coming (up again)!

Serious can't we have some sort of alarm that warns normal folk the can avoid the thread for three or four pages.

We need a UK Govt Tsar for this sort of thing.....or a sleep timer.

I don't know if you're married or not, but if you ever have a stag night, then hopefully, the stag night prank will see you kidnapped and tied to a lampost outside the venue of the next SNP conference

**welshhoppo**

BaronIveagh wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
Except Scotland had the chance and chose to remain with the UK.

Looking at the Brexit result, they also chose to remain with the EU. Now we have two mutually exclusive results. Hmmm.

Except Scotland is a part of the U.K., it doesn't matter how they voted compared to the rest of the U.K. Heck, London voted to remain too. In fact London probably skewed the result by several hundred thousand votes.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

In all honesty, what is the problem with talking about the SNP?

If you're worried that you don't know much about them, then PM me with an address, and I'll send you one of my many books on the history of the SNP.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

welshhoppo wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
Except Scotland had the chance and chose to remain with the UK.

Looking at the Brexit result, they also chose to remain with the EU. Now we have two mutually exclusive results. Hmmm.

Except Scotland is a part of the U.K., it doesn't matter how they voted compared to the rest of the U.K. Heck, London voted to remain too. In fact London probably skewed the result by several hundred thousand votes.

True, but I'll bet my last penny that the Government will bend over backwards to get a special deal for London, and no such effort will be made for Scotland, or Northern Ireland, or anywhere else that voted Remain by such a huge margin.

**Whirlwind**

welshhoppo wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
Except Scotland had the chance and chose to remain with the UK.

Looking at the Brexit result, they also chose to remain with the EU. Now we have two mutually exclusive results. Hmmm.

Except Scotland is a part of the U.K., it doesn't matter how they voted compared to the rest of the U.K. Heck, London voted to remain too. In fact London probably skewed the result by several hundred thousand votes.

Which is a conglomeration of different countries hence the "United" kingdom. However each is it's own separate country with it's own principles and history (so England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and so on). London is and has never been an independent country.

I do not see why you are so opposed to letting the country of Scotland determine what it wants for it's future.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Whirlwind wrote:
notprop wrote:
I can tell you appreciate the opportunity to repeat the same old guff ad nauseum but it's as boring as hell to come back to discuss something a bit more current that a 2 year old provincial issue.

No this was a new idea and improvement surely! Get an independent Scotland and get an independent dakka thread. Surely that makes both sides happy. One that can talk about Scotland politics freely and one that doesn't have to whine about hearing about it!

Anyway in other news from the BBC

Prosecutors considering EU referendum complaint

The Crown Prosecution Service is considering a complaint that voters in the EU referendum were misled by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns in breach of electoral law.

The allegations against the campaigns - centering on high-profile claims that Brexit could free up an extra £350m to be spent a week on the NHS and the UK was powerless to stop Turkey joining the EU - were lodged with the Director of Public Prosecutions by a group of lawyers and citizens backed by Professor Bob Watt, an expert in electoral law at the University of Buckingham.

If successful it could see charges brought against leading Leave campaigners with the prospect of up to a year's imprisonment if they are found guilty.

The CPS said it had received the complaint and was considering it.

Prof Watt said DPP Alison Saunders had now referred the matter to her electoral law team to investigate.

That could be all the Brexiter MPs in jail and NF; that would be funny and poetic. Lie to the populace, go straight to Jail, do not pick up £350m.

By that criteria, every election in human history would have charges brought aginst it.

Weren't we suposed to be fighting in David Cameron's World War Three by now?

**whembly**

Whirlwind wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
Except Scotland had the chance and chose to remain with the UK.

Looking at the Brexit result, they also chose to remain with the EU. Now we have two mutually exclusive results. Hmmm.

Except Scotland is a part of the U.K., it doesn't matter how they voted compared to the rest of the U.K. Heck, London voted to remain too. In fact London probably skewed the result by several hundred thousand votes.

Which is a conglomeration of different countries hence the "United" kingdom. However each is it's own separate country with it's own principles and history (so England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and so on). London is and has never been an independent country.

I do not see why you are so opposed to letting the country of Scotland determine what it wants for it's future.

Sounds awfully like the United States. We have 50 quasi-countries "states" that are "United". The Federal power is divested in Washington D.C. which is strictly a federal district that isn't a state.

Maybe ya'll need to create your own D.C. "area"? Or, turn London into one?

London sounds like Washinton D.C., much in the same way as Panem's The Capitol is described.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

By that criteria, every election in human history would have charges brought aginst it.

Weren't we suposed to be fighting in David Cameron's World War Three by now?

Well only from when the law applies.

Not arguing that there were silly statements from both sides though! Maybe they should just lock them all up and get it over and done with?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

Which is a conglomeration of different countries hence the "United" kingdom. However each is it's own separate country with it's own principles and history (so England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and so on). London is and has never been an independent country.

I do not see why you are so opposed to letting the country of Scotland determine what it wants for it's future.

Sounds awfully like the United States. We have 50 quasi-countries "states" that are "United". The Federal power is divested in Washington D.C. which is strictly a federal district that isn't a state.

Maybe ya'll need to create your own D.C. "area"? Or, turn London into one?

London sounds like Washinton D.C., much in the same way as Panem's The Capitol is described.

We're not really big enough for that though so it's not practical at that scale. The Country is already divided into Local Authority regions that have semi-autonomous control over some things. Scotland's remit is much bigger, but then it is much bigger in size (if not population) than many other areas in the UK. And in reality Scotland is only in the UK because the English invaded several hundred years ago, whereas England has pretty much been part of England all the time despite the occasional squabble.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

This is my last post of the day, but it's worth pointing out (and I'm sure Notprop is dying to know this

)

that in England, Parliament is sovereign, and there is a long history to support this.

Scotland is different. The people are sovereign, and there is a long legal history to support this, hence why Scottish Kings and Queens were known as King/Queen of Scots, and not Scotland.

The monarch in England is King /Queen X of England and not King of the English....

It's a very subtle difference but a difference none the less....

Hence why the Scottish people being sovereign + the United Nations right to self determination, is used as an argument for the Scottish people to determine their own future, should they choose to do so in say another referendum....