If Sturgeon’s premise is correct and in the event of independence …. and using the same argument , would she agree to Shetland’s independence from Scotland . The truth is that Sturgeon has claimed every election including the UK referendum and local elections as a mandate for an independence referendum. Clearly that is not the case . It is simply grasping at straws . More importantly the SNP since they took control of Scotland have not proved that they are capable of running the country …..had they done so their case for independence would be much stronger .
Shetland is a part of internationally recognised "Scotland". It is against international law, to encourage/attempt to remove a part of a recognised country, during its move to independence.
I, personally, have no problem with the Northern Isles, if they wished to be self-governing, but there is no serious push in the isles for that to happen. I believe a newspaper ran a poll about 8-10 years ago and less than 10% were interested in breaking away.
….8-10 years ago ? I seem to recall we had a similar thing around the same time whereby we decided against independence after holding a legal referendum. To counter your argument , Catalonia is part of internationally recognised Spain but that doesn’t stop them wishing to be independent.
Great report. WM needs to point out that this Indy is going no where. Put the mad foul mouth woman in her place. Play her at her own game and start undermining her instead of pussy footing around her. The majority of the Scottish voters are sick of this nonsense. It is damaging to our relationship with England and also Scottish business. Sturgeon knows she is losing but as always it is never her fault.
Where is the misogyny? It’s not misogyny to suggest that a woman is wrong. It’s misogyny to say she is wrong because she is a woman.
Where is the poison? It’s not poisonous to argue a point. Putting it another way, Scottish Nationalism is not poisonous. The mode in which the SNP seek to bring about independence, however, may perhaps be described as poisonous. Their neglect of basic government probably is poisonous.
There is nothing “shabby” nor “misogynist”about pointing out the woeful mismanagement of Scotland’s civic infrastructure,health service,willful disregard of economic and educational prospects of the young,profligate spending on faux trappings of state and comms manipulation by this dreary, inward looking, parochial administration .They do not stick to any principle longer than it serves personal aggrandizement and enrichment.They are corrupt in a way not yet achievable in rUK where a modicum of scrutiny still takes place.
Westminster needs to put an end to all this nonsense and say once and for all that 2014’s result stands and there’ll be no other referendums. Then do as Stephen suggests and legislate that the UK is indivisible. Scotland can’t survive much longer with this uncertainty, division and nastiness in its body politic.
The UK has probably gone too far along the path of recognising potential independence for Scotland for central government to take Stephen Daisley's advice, but the UK Government and Parliament should revisit the question of accepting a one-off bare majority vote as doing the trick. Watch out for my take on this issue next week on the London School of Economics' British Politics and Policy blog.
This is the most specious nonsense. The UK constitution is unwritten, but does recognise the legal right of Northern Ireland to self-determination--England, by dint of its size, could also secede from the Union in law. "Sovereignty of Westminster" is an invention of 19th century England; it has no equivalence in Scottish judicial tradition and though it will be acceded to by the Supreme Court, will not end the argument. Anglo-British nationalism rests on the terms of the Scotland Act, not on the Treaty of Union, which took two independent countries to implement. Now, the argument goes, one of those countries has total authority over the other. It will not wash, and a century ago, Ireland refused to bow to the same "English" bullying, and was lost.
Well it’s a relief to read an Nationalist who manages to express a point of view without excessive abuse. I don’t understand the reference to Anglo-British Nationalism or how it rests upon the terms of the Scotland Act.
Also, if you don’t like the theory of the Sovereignty of Parliament because it’s not part of the Scottish judicial tradition what would you have instead? Presumably not the Divine Right of Kings.
We need less bland, less inauthentic explanations of why Scots shouldn’t decide their own future. If we can’t explain properly why they can’t decide what to vote on or whether or not to rule their own country they’ll end up working out that they are being conned…
Were we not supposed NOT to talk about the referendum?
Anyway, there are exceptions to your argument. Yugoslavia, USSR, Czechoslovakia. Not to mention Finland and Ireland. Now even the EU is pressing for Kossovo.
This doesn't mean that Sturgeon 's pretend argument isn't fatuous, but that yours is not strong either.
Yugoslavia, USSR and Czechoslovakia were under dictatorial rule. Scotland is not. Parts of Yugoslavia were under the rule of different empires before the country was created. The USSR inherited the lands of the Russian empire. Czechia had been under Austrian rule and Slovakia under a Hungarian rule. I can’t see what parallels they provide for Scotland. Finland? Ruled by Swedes until 1809 and then part of the Russian empire until 1917.
My point is that countries come and go for a multitude of reasons. Come together and then disintegrate and come together again.
Take Finland, it wasn't an independent country for many centuries, not to mention Ireland. This is why I am saying that the argument of the article is weak.
It’s about time Westminster stepped up to the plate on this issue. They really do need to be more assertive as suggested in this article.
If Sturgeon’s premise is correct and in the event of independence …. and using the same argument , would she agree to Shetland’s independence from Scotland . The truth is that Sturgeon has claimed every election including the UK referendum and local elections as a mandate for an independence referendum. Clearly that is not the case . It is simply grasping at straws . More importantly the SNP since they took control of Scotland have not proved that they are capable of running the country …..had they done so their case for independence would be much stronger .
Shetland is a part of internationally recognised "Scotland". It is against international law, to encourage/attempt to remove a part of a recognised country, during its move to independence.
I, personally, have no problem with the Northern Isles, if they wished to be self-governing, but there is no serious push in the isles for that to happen. I believe a newspaper ran a poll about 8-10 years ago and less than 10% were interested in breaking away.
….8-10 years ago ? I seem to recall we had a similar thing around the same time whereby we decided against independence after holding a legal referendum. To counter your argument , Catalonia is part of internationally recognised Spain but that doesn’t stop them wishing to be independent.
Great report. WM needs to point out that this Indy is going no where. Put the mad foul mouth woman in her place. Play her at her own game and start undermining her instead of pussy footing around her. The majority of the Scottish voters are sick of this nonsense. It is damaging to our relationship with England and also Scottish business. Sturgeon knows she is losing but as always it is never her fault.
Shabby misogynist poison.
Election after election, after election, with a bigger share of the vote than "Tory landslides", and the latest Westminster poll has the SNP at 47%.
Boris or Starmer would sell their grannies for that share of the vote.
Where is the misogyny? It’s not misogyny to suggest that a woman is wrong. It’s misogyny to say she is wrong because she is a woman.
Where is the poison? It’s not poisonous to argue a point. Putting it another way, Scottish Nationalism is not poisonous. The mode in which the SNP seek to bring about independence, however, may perhaps be described as poisonous. Their neglect of basic government probably is poisonous.
There is nothing “shabby” nor “misogynist”about pointing out the woeful mismanagement of Scotland’s civic infrastructure,health service,willful disregard of economic and educational prospects of the young,profligate spending on faux trappings of state and comms manipulation by this dreary, inward looking, parochial administration .They do not stick to any principle longer than it serves personal aggrandizement and enrichment.They are corrupt in a way not yet achievable in rUK where a modicum of scrutiny still takes place.
Well researched needs further publication
Westminster needs to put an end to all this nonsense and say once and for all that 2014’s result stands and there’ll be no other referendums. Then do as Stephen suggests and legislate that the UK is indivisible. Scotland can’t survive much longer with this uncertainty, division and nastiness in its body politic.
Bullseye! This should be read by every Scot.
Very informative — I didn’t know any of this before reading Stephen’s article.
I guess independence isn’t as ‘normal’ as we are all constantly being told it is
Brilliant piece Stephen,exactly what we need
Straight to the point,giving them food for thought 👏👏👏
Outfuckingstanding! Many thanks.
Boris Johnson is now resigning . This puts Nicola Sturgeon in a very difficult position ….who is she ( and Blackford) going to to despise now ?
The UK has probably gone too far along the path of recognising potential independence for Scotland for central government to take Stephen Daisley's advice, but the UK Government and Parliament should revisit the question of accepting a one-off bare majority vote as doing the trick. Watch out for my take on this issue next week on the London School of Economics' British Politics and Policy blog.
This is the most specious nonsense. The UK constitution is unwritten, but does recognise the legal right of Northern Ireland to self-determination--England, by dint of its size, could also secede from the Union in law. "Sovereignty of Westminster" is an invention of 19th century England; it has no equivalence in Scottish judicial tradition and though it will be acceded to by the Supreme Court, will not end the argument. Anglo-British nationalism rests on the terms of the Scotland Act, not on the Treaty of Union, which took two independent countries to implement. Now, the argument goes, one of those countries has total authority over the other. It will not wash, and a century ago, Ireland refused to bow to the same "English" bullying, and was lost.
Try answering the factual points Stephen makes instead of trying to bludgeon us with SNP bluster.
Well it’s a relief to read an Nationalist who manages to express a point of view without excessive abuse. I don’t understand the reference to Anglo-British Nationalism or how it rests upon the terms of the Scotland Act.
Also, if you don’t like the theory of the Sovereignty of Parliament because it’s not part of the Scottish judicial tradition what would you have instead? Presumably not the Divine Right of Kings.
We need less bland, less inauthentic explanations of why Scots shouldn’t decide their own future. If we can’t explain properly why they can’t decide what to vote on or whether or not to rule their own country they’ll end up working out that they are being conned…
Je ne comprends pas .
Were we not supposed NOT to talk about the referendum?
Anyway, there are exceptions to your argument. Yugoslavia, USSR, Czechoslovakia. Not to mention Finland and Ireland. Now even the EU is pressing for Kossovo.
This doesn't mean that Sturgeon 's pretend argument isn't fatuous, but that yours is not strong either.
Yugoslavia, USSR and Czechoslovakia were under dictatorial rule. Scotland is not. Parts of Yugoslavia were under the rule of different empires before the country was created. The USSR inherited the lands of the Russian empire. Czechia had been under Austrian rule and Slovakia under a Hungarian rule. I can’t see what parallels they provide for Scotland. Finland? Ruled by Swedes until 1809 and then part of the Russian empire until 1917.
My point is that countries come and go for a multitude of reasons. Come together and then disintegrate and come together again.
Take Finland, it wasn't an independent country for many centuries, not to mention Ireland. This is why I am saying that the argument of the article is weak.
USSR and former Soviet satellites!? Kinda strengthens his argument I think.
No, former USSR, not satellite states.
Another bought and paid for piece by the tax dodging billionaire’s Daily Mail scribbler.
None of that means he’s wrong, though.
Except he is.
Not that you have shown that.