Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Sturgeon says Scotland could try to block UK withdrawal from the EU Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    We do know, the Scots cannot do anything to stop the UK from leaving the EU, they don't have the power. They cannot stop us from leaving NATO, the WTO, or any organisation in which the UK is a member
    Maybe you should do some reading into Sturgeon's latest manifesto mate

    All we do not know, UKIP had no influence in parliament but they still influence the referendum

    Whether they actually stop it themselves or influence others cannot be analysed until after
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    We do know, the Scots cannot do anything to stop the UK from leaving the EU, they don't have the power. They cannot stop us from leaving NATO, the WTO, or any organisation in which the UK is a member
    The House of Lords is of the opinions that due to UK constitutional law scotland has the power to prevent us from leaving.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The House of Lords is of the opinions that due to UK constitutional law scotland has the power to prevent us from leaving.
    Except that is not the case at all, they have not even made that judgement.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    Except that is not the case at all, they have not even made that judgement.
    70. We asked Sir David whether he thought the Scottish Parliament would haveto give its consent to measures extinguishing the application of EU law inScotland. He noted that such measures would entail amendment of section29 of the Scotland Act 1998, which binds the Scottish Parliament to act in amanner compatible with EU law, and he therefore believed that the ScottishParliament’s consent would be required.83 He could envisage certain politicaladvantages being drawn from not giving consent.
    http://www.publications.parliament.u...om/138/138.pdf
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    That is not an actual judgement of the HoL is it? It is one guy, Sir David, giving his opinion. Also, what he says is that Scotland should follow EU law (proving the point about national sovereignty here), Article 50, is following EU law, so Scotland cannot complain about that. The UK withdrawal will be legal.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Maybe you should do some reading into Sturgeon's latest manifesto mate

    All we do not know, UKIP had no influence in parliament but they still influence the referendum

    Whether they actually stop it themselves or influence others cannot be analysed until after
    100% Guarantee that Scotland will be not able to do anything about it, all of their comments now are just aimed to rile up their voter base and appeal to the EU.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZeroFree)
    61% of Scots voted to remain.

    If 61% isn't enough of an indication that they like something, 52% isn't an indication that the rest of us dislike it. Should we call off Brexit?
    You are mixing up support of the EU for leaving the UK, there is a difference. Yes they can prefer to stay in the UK, but not all of them 61% would prefer to stay in the EU over staying in the UK. The whole thing make no sense. The UK is far more crucial to the economy of Scotland than the EU, so either the UK will get a good trade deal, in which case Scotland may swell stay, or the UK wont, in which case Scotland is ****ed, as Scotland needs us for exports.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    That is not an actual judgement of the HoL is it? It is one guy, Sir David, giving his opinion. Also, what he says is that Scotland should follow EU law (proving the point about national sovereignty here), Article 50, is following EU law, so Scotland cannot complain about that. The UK withdrawal will be legal.
    I take it you do not know the sewel convention? and you seen to confuse EU law with the treaties which aren't law.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I take it you do not know the sewel convention? and you seen to confuse EU law with the treaties which aren't law.
    I know I am right with this, I even watched a whole host of legal experts / constitutional lawyers etc. talking about this, they all agreed that Scotland cannot stop it. Obviously you are more wise than all of those people.

    In a few months when the new Tory leader / cabinet is elected and things start moving forward, come back to this thread, you will see that I was right. All the SNP will do now in blow hot air and not stop anything.

    The only people who actually can stop it, are the MP's at Westminster (although they will not do so).
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    I know I am right with this, I even watched a whole host of legal experts / constitutional lawyers etc. talking about this, they all agreed that Scotland cannot stop it. Obviously you are more wise than all of those people.

    In a few months when the new Tory leader / cabinet is elected and things start moving forward, come back to this thread, you will see that I was right. All the SNP will do now in blow hot air and not stop anything.

    The only people who actually can stop it, are the MP's at Westminster (although they will not do so).
    first line is arrogant. I'd like a citation rather then taking your word for it.

    The SNP will have their independance referendum set by then.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Edmund Monfort)
    And the majority voted to remain, so maybe you're the one who needs to face reality! Why is it fine for Brexiters to say "respect our decision, the people have spoken" when they won by a margin of only 4%, but then OK to try and ignore or belittle Scotland's decision to remain, which won by a far greater margin? Lol at that hypocrisy.
    Because Scotland is part of the UK. Should we give London independence because the remain vote was stronger there? Scotland is not an independent sovereign state like Nicola Sturgeon seems to think. It is part of the UK, therefore Scotland leaves, just like London leaves.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Party opinions are irrelevant in this referendum, as regional breakdowns show a clear 'divorce' between party politics and what the voters did. This is also why so many polls were wrong about the outcome. Moreover, whoever becomes the next leader of the Tory party (most likely a leading Eurosceptic) will trigger Article 50 and deal with the renegotiations. Cameron has hinted that he will not be responsible for this (and rightly so).
    I agree with you here, its not necessarily divided along party lines; my point was the UK parliament if they had a free vote would want to stay in. Labour as a party (with few exceptions) want in, so does half of conservatives, and all of Lib dem. They're the ones SNP needs to care about - English voter sentiments are rather irrelevant as far as SNP is concerned.
    I agree its right that cameron stepped down, his position would be untenable after the refendum and frankly its not his problem to fulfill leave's promises. However I'm not sure there is a principled eurosceptic to take over (principled part is important because for anyone whom leaving EU is a stepping stone for their careers *cough*Boris*cough*, it makes more sense to not exit if theres an alternative like Scotland is providing).
    Essentially everyone SNP needs to care about will support them in refusing consent, either vocally or through backchannels.

    I don't agree with you here. From a political stance, refusing to now exit the EU would be political suicide and would cause an even wider division. At this stage, I feel that Scottish secession is inevitable; be it in the next year or in the next decade.
    Refusing to exit the EU would only be damaging if voters believe you're the one who are responsible and only in certain segments of country. Yes Scottish independence maybe few decades away at best but if we leave EU, it is couple of years away and regardless of deal negotiated with EU (which won't be good anyways), a PM under whom nation fractured is not getting elected again.
    Given this, and given we don't really have a team committed to leave EU as a personal project, merely who are using the cause to advance personal career, faced with certain political suicide, it's not inconceivable they don't violate Sewel convention, claim their hnds are tied and points blame to Scotland while Sturgeon seeing an opportunity to be permanently adored in Scotland (also other areas like London but doubt that'll factor in), takes full credit for stopping Brexit.
    It'd not be first time politicians have lied about not being able do something, nor the first time politician has taken full credit for what was at best team effort. Yes this will probably cause massive resentment of Scots among rural England and wales, which will likely being that few decades timeline closer, but by then the PM would have take a cushy job in private sector, and it'll be someone else's problem.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    I know I am right with this, I even watched a whole host of legal experts / constitutional lawyers etc. talking about this, they all agreed that Scotland cannot stop it. Obviously you are more wise than all of those people.

    In a few months when the new Tory leader / cabinet is elected and things start moving forward, come back to this thread, you will see that I was right. All the SNP will do now in blow hot air and not stop anything.

    The only people who actually can stop it, are the MP's at Westminster (although they will not do so).
    They can refuse to provide consent because it involves amending scope of Scottish parliament, which by convention (and that's basically what keeps British system working) areas which are either devolved, or which alter scope of Scottish parliament or executive must first have consent of Scottish parliament.
    Parliament can of course say damn convention, they could also say "every citizen much execute everyone whose name has two Bs" - of course those actions have consequences - Scotland will gain independence while whoever is then PM get their career ended, and people collectively think parliament has gone insane respectively.
    However it is certainly possible, and quite likely Scotland will refuse consent not just because they can but because they have democratic mandate to do so, and perhaps more importantly because it'll be politically advantageous.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    They can refuse to provide consent because it involves amending scope of Scottish parliament, which by convention (and that's basically what keeps British system working) areas which are either devolved, or which alter scope of Scottish parliament or executive must first have consent of Scottish parliament.
    Parliament can of course say damn convention, they could also say "every citizen much execute everyone whose name has two Bs" - of course those actions have consequences - Scotland will gain independence while whoever is then PM get their career ended, and people collectively think parliament has gone insane respectively.
    However it is certainly possible, and quite likely Scotland will refuse consent not just because they can but because they have democratic mandate to do so, and perhaps more importantly because it'll be politically advantageous.
    This consent issue is what the people I watched were talking about, the consent that we have is more akin to asking a women's parents if you can marry her, of course it is nice if they say yes and give their consent, but ultimately, it is not legally required.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I can't stand that woman
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    This consent issue is what the people I watched were talking about, the consent that we have is more akin to asking a women's parents if you can marry her, of course it is nice if they say yes and give their consent, but ultimately, it is not legally required.
    No consent isn't like that; because entire British parliamentary system is held together by convention. Whoever has majority could ban opposition parties, queen could refuse to appoint the PM, government could ban elections. Just because it is legally permitted doesn't mean will be done, and just because it isn't legally required doesn't mean it is unimportant. For recent example, the government didn't need HoL's permission to go through with many of its plans which were watered down/ delayed; commons can pass laws without necessarily needing to go to house of lords, yet they were because that is what conventionally happens.
    Yes parliament doesn't need Scottish approval legally, they need it to work on conventional manner and doing anything else will lead to Scottish independence. Combine "they're unravelling our parliament!" with "they are dragging us out of EU" and you end with cake walk independence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sturgeon has never said she will block it, that's the media twisting words, she can however veto giving consent. why would they even want to block it that was their golden opportunity, the perfect excuse of having another shot at independence.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Aph)
    [/list]I feel I need to respond to this point... for the first 3 actually we could check because we were not in schengen. so people with terrorist links who posed a danger to the british public and people who didn't have genuine passports could and were refused entry.
    I don't see the point of your 4th point...
    You are clearly are not a law, political science or philosophy student/graduate. If you were then you're probably not a diligent one.

    The reason why people wanting to enter into another country, be checked for HIV/AIDS is because the government owes a duty to its citizens to protect them from people who may want to infect others with their communicable diseases. This is an extension of a 'social contract theory'. Read up on it if you have time. Educate yourself.

    There are no real jobs for graduates in the UK and EU. Eventually you will have to venture out of your comfort zone and fly to Asia to look for work. These rich, prosperous and safe first world countries with good governments, requires every aspiring work permit holder to undergo a series of checks such as
    • being checked if they are holding genuine passports
    • being checked if they have genuine educational qualifications or trade skills
    • being checked if they have links to terrorist groups
    • being checked if they have criminal records in their home countries
    • being checked if they have HIV/AIDS
    There are reasons why you have a hard time believing that such policies exists elsewhere and understand the rationale behind it is because (1) you've never taken a holiday in these rich, prosperous and safe first world countries. You're not the only one. I've had to reply to several others like you on this forum. It's getting tiring having to educate all of you. I wonder what they teach you in school. (2) I understand that the overall quality of British teachers are nothing to shout about from the rooftops but surely there's something known as independent learning? No? Geez.

    (3) The fact that successive British governments after Thatcher have been largely clueless is another reason why you have very low expectations. After Thatcher was ousted, several politicians were in it for themselves. As long as they can claim fraudulent expenses, buy multiple homes, send their children to tops UK and US unis, then only are they contented. The welfare of the people is the least of their concern. I guess the reason for your oblivion can be illustrated by this famous chinese saying which in your present case of oblivion, certainly holds true. If the top beam is not straight, the lower beams will be crooked.

    Another issue is what I would dub as 'managing expectations'. A few months ago I pointed out to several current and aspiring doctors on the medical thread that one too many patient deaths in the NHS is one too many. But these future and senior doctors (be it imaginary or otherwise) said that tens of thousands of patient deaths in hospital due to negligence or ill-treatment was acceptable given that UK has a population of 60 million :eek:

    Another example would be the number of rapes in UK. When I pointed out that the number of rapes was unacceptable, people again uttered the magic phrase 'the number of rapes in UK is acceptable given that UK has a population of 60 million people'. :eek:

    TheTechN1304 swanderfeild The_Opinion Jee1 frackme Duncan2012
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    You are clearly are not a law, political science or philosophy student/graduate. If you were then you're probably not a diligent one.
    is that MENT to be some insult? No I'm just a knowledgeable person.

    The reason why people wanting to enter into another country, be checked for HIV/AIDS is because the government owes a duty to its citizens to protect them from people who may want to infect others with their communicable diseases. This is an extension of a 'social contract theory'. Read up on it if you have time. Educate yourself.
    wow, you think people are coming to the UK to infect us? That will happen anyway if people are having unsafe sex...

    There are no real jobs for graduates in the UK and EU. Eventually you will have to venture out of your comfort zone and fly to Asia to look for work. These rich, prosperous and safe first world countries with good governments, requirs every aspiring work permit holder to undergo a series of checks such as
    so you have a problem with globalisation?
    being checked if they are holding genuine passports
    • being checked if they have genuine educational qualifications or trade skills
    • being checked if they have links to terrorist groups
    • being checked if they have criminal records in their home countries
    • being checked if they have HIV/AIDS
    • we can do all but 2 and 5 in the EU you know...
    There are reasons why you have a hard time believing that such policies exists elsewhere and understand the rationale behind it is because
    (1) you've never taken a holiday in these rich, prosperous and safe first world countries. You're not the only one. I've had to reply to several others like you on this forum. It's getting tiring having to educate all of you. I wonder what they teach you in school. (2) I understand that the overall quality of British teachers are nothing to shout about from the rooftops but surely there's something known as independent learning? No? Geez.

    (3) The fact that successive British governments after Thatcher have been largely clueless is another reason why you have very low expectations. After Thatcher was ousted, several politicians were in it for themselves. As long as they can claim fraudulent expenses, buy multiple homes, send their children to tops UK and US unis, then only are they contented. The welfare of the people is the least of their concern. I guess the reason for your oblivion can be illustrated by this famous chinese saying which in your present case of oblivion, certainly holds true. If the top beam is not straight, the lower beams will be crooked.
    im going to ignore these ad hominems patronising remarks.
    Another issue is what I would dub as 'managing expectations'. A few months ago I pointed out to several current and aspiring doctors on the medical thread that one too many patient deaths in the NHS is one too many. But these future and senior doctors (be it imaginary or otherwise) said that tens of thousands of patient deaths in hospital due to negligence or ill-treatment was acceptable given that UK has a population of 60 million :eek:

    Another example would be the number of rapes in UK. When I pointed out that the number of rapes was unacceptable, people again uttered the magic phrase 'the number of rapes in UK is acceptable given that UK has a population of 60 million people'. :eek:

    TheTechN1304 swanderfeild The_Opinion Jee1 frackme Duncan2012
    what are you trying to say here seems completely irrelevant.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    first line is arrogant. I'd like a citation rather then taking your word for it.

    The SNP will have their independance referendum set by then.


    How about Alex Salmond? Even he now admits that Scotland can not block leaving the EU.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-block-brexit/
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.