Second Scottish independence referendum

I am not going to have respect for a colossal mistake.

If they want to leave fine. But they aren't taking my rights away.

All nationalists have the same ideology, they just have different tribes.

Not necessarily, all states have the right to self-determination. Under the provisions of international law the Scots could hold their own referendum and if they voted for independence then Westminster would have to respect it. But then again, the SNP's logic isn't really for independence, it does after all want Scotland to be a member of the EU, which at this stage would involve a commitment to joining the single currency, and the Eurozone is well on its way to becoming a fully fledged federal state.

It's the people's mistake to make and you have no rights beyond what this liberal democracy grants you in law.

Really showing your right wing screw the people side now aren't you?*

Really showing your right wing screw the people side now aren't you?*

Scotland would be at a HUGE advantage to take all the EU City work off London without the need of it leaving this Island.

Its in everyones best interest for Scotland to go Indy otherwise the London work will go abroad.

It would definitely be in the 48% best interest for Scotland to go Indy AND for them to offer passports to any UK passport holder who wanted the new Scottish passport.

Scotland would be at a HUGE advantage to take all the EU City work off London without the need of it leaving this Island.

Its in everyones best interest for Scotland to go Indy otherwise the London work will go abroad.

Not in the Scottish interest to cut its nose to spite its face. The very high public funding it gets from the central pot at present would have to be maintained by cuts, tax hikes or both. That is the great advantage of pooling resources across the UK.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm sorry, that's simply not true. Scottish people self-determine as part of a democratic United Kingdom. There is no international law requirement for anything of the sort. Indeed, this question was fairly conclusively addressed in the Reference in re: Secession of Quebec.

The UK Parliament has exclusive competence over issues of the constitution and the union. The Scottish Parliament does not and is not capable of acting in that way. Which is why they didn't and got UK Government agreement ahead of 2014.

Not true, speaking from the perspective of international law, there is something called the Kosovo precedent, whereby the UN Court of Justice found it legitimate that Kosovo could secede from Serbia without the permission of the central authorities of Serbia (albeit the secession took place in bloodier circumstances). However the UN Court of Justice ruled that "No general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be ruled by the security council", meaning if the declaration of independence is made under similar circumstances to Kosovo (whereby a state decides to secede due to years of violent repression) or where a referendum is held and international observers agree that the referendum isn't rigged, a state CAN secede without the permission of the central authority. Now obviously in the case of Scotland nobody expects a war, the more likely outcome would be that the Scottish Assembly votes in favour of holding a referendum, the referendum is held and meets international criteria to not be rigged, and if a vote for independence is in the majority then that's what legally should follow. Not endorsing Scottish independence but I am pointing out that Scotland can secede without the permission of Westminster. How Westminster would respond is a different question, but can it be done legally? Yes.

Ridiculous nonsense. You're not going to have major financial institutions move to a country that doesn't have a credible currency, has a small market for their business, few assurances about the future and an insurmountable fiscal crisis.

Instead, Scottish independence will see major financial service companies based in Edinburgh - like the life insurance sector - whose markets are overwhelmingly in the rest of the UK, leave.

Now obviously in the case of Scotland nobody expects a war, the more likely outcome would be that the Scottish Assembly votes in favour of holding a referendum

That makes no sense.otherwise how does the Channel Islands make so much money from finance (the Jersey pound is not legal tender in the UK). You're being disingenuous due to your biased politics against the ordinary people of UK

I'm sorry, but that's the strangest interpretation of the Advisory Opinion given by the ICJ that I've ever heard. I also note that your quote there is a fabrication, it appears nowhere in any ICJ judgment.

What the ICJ held, quite reasonably, is that there is no prohibition in international law to declare independence. It also noted of course that declarations of independence often have no effect - they do not create rights in international law either. Making one has no legal effect whatsoever in international law in these circumstances.

The domestic law of states, however, tends implicitly to prevent this.



Which the Scottish Parliament cannot do, because it is ultra vires. Your "likely outcome" falls at the first hurdle.

Your legal point is also patent nonsense, not to mention offensively daft given that you're comparing the circumstances of a territory under international administration set up to prevent a genocide with the position of an integral part of a liberal democracy. Kosovo may create lessons for those interested in international politics, but they are not the lessons you're suggesting.