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

    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    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/
    All he said is what we already know and what the last person told you. Scotland cannot absolutely block it but it can due to convention which is what keeps this country together because we don't have a written constitution.
    Offline

    18
    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.
    The reason all these remainer posts keep getting upvoted is because there's a lot of foreigners and teens on here :facepalm:

    Anyway 40% is a whole helluva lot of people! Too much to go ignored. It's not like 2,000 of em voted leave or something. MILLIONS bruv MILLIONS. She needs to stop dividing the country and just try to do her job as a politician and protect the country with moving on. Develop ideas, develop plans, and redevelop the country. It's almost like these people forget what their job is.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    All he said is what we already know and what the last person told you. Scotland cannot absolutely block it but it can due to convention which is what keeps this country together because we don't have a written constitution.
    I said that there is nothing Scotland can do about it, I was told that I was wrong, now I have proven that I was correct, Scotland cannot stop it, job done.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    I said that there is nothing Scotland can do about it, I was told that I was wrong, now I have proven that I was correct, Scotland cannot stop it, job done.
    But if they do they are breaking constitutional convention and British government is built on convention.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Cool, because we totally check that for people coming in from outside the EU. I must have forgotten to give them a blood sample when I moved.

    (Original post by Audrey18)
    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
    Oh yes we totally didn't have any graduate jobs in the UK, or in Europe. Also naturally by leaving the EU, we are creating so many new jobs already.

    (Original post by Audrey18)
    • 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
    1. We already did.
    2. Access to single market >> few people coming in who don't contribute as much among group which on average contributes more than British born people.
    3. We already could.
    4. We already could; actually we need to negotiate this now (probably going to be successful in this one at least but nevertheless).
    5. Yes clearly we always took blood sample from non-EU migrants before giving them visas.

    (Original post by Audrey18)
    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.
    Yes clearly you know how I did not live in Hong Kong, or how I did not visit US/ Canada. Oh and of course this explains why most people who live and work abroad want to remain in EU.

    (Original post by Audrey18)
    (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.
    Cool story, so what exactly is your point here? Or rather how is leaving EU supposed to alleviate corruption?

    (Original post by Audrey18)
    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:
    Yes, when you have several people going to hospital, it is likely that one of them will get sub-optimal care. Your problem here is with maths not EU.

    (Original post by Audrey18)
    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:
    Cool; once again what does this have to do with EU?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's not Sturgeon who wants to try and block it as she has never said that, a tongue twister by the media, She can if she wants veto consent in putting it through.. The people who are trying to stop it is the Westminster elite. They have just been given a good kick up the arse and they cannot take it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Duncan2012)
    She'll say absolutely anything to push for independence and keep her name on the front page. Even though it's complete nonsense.
    Spot on. Her party colleagues are now going around spewing half-digested pseudo-legal gibberish on this point. The Scottish Government cannot block the UK leaving the EU.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Scotland voted remain, she has a duty to try and keep them in it. Ideally to avoid less chaos still as a member of the UK, and if not then RIP Acts of Union.
    No she doesn't. Not any more than the leader of the Shetland Islands Council (who voted to Leave the EEC in 1975) should have tried to block the UK entering it.

    It was a referendum that had a decisive result: standing in the way of that is not reasonable, never mind a "duty". Representatives from the various parts of the country don't get to double-guess the democratic judgement of the people.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    And far more than that voted to Remain. The Scottish people want to stay in the EU, as first minister for Scotland her job now is to do her best to respect the wishes of the Scottish people. As for it being part of the UK - they voted to remain in the UK on a lie; that a vote to remain would keep them in the EU.
    I don't think that had a great deal to do with people's vote in the Scottish referendum: it focused on the currency, pooling and sharing and the dire economic consequences of leaving. Who told this "lie" exactly?

    I ask, because it's a lot of nonsense. Scottish independence would've resulted in Scotland finding itself outside of the EU. That was a perfectly credible point to raise and, if you were a Remainer - to fight against. No-one ever said that wouldn't change within the EU - indeed, the party of government had committed to a referendum on it.

    I do wonder about some of these sorts of silly arguments you hear from Scottish nationalists sometimes. They seem to constantly present the Scottish public as credulous idiots who apparently miss the most basic political facts.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Scotland cannot absolutely block it but it can due to convention which is what keeps this country together because we don't have a written constitution.
    Nope, there is nothing in convention that stops this.

    The Sewel convention applies to legislating in non-reserved areas. This is completely reserved. An additional convention has also emerged which suggests in the ordinary course of things, the UK Parliament will not change the legislation that constitutes the devolution settlement without consultation - which, to be fair, does contain references to EU law.

    The Scotland Act 1998 mentions the EU a good few times, often in fairly dull things (some issues of electoral administration etc). The broad power is a reservation of EU issues, and a prohibition on Scottish Ministers acting in a way that is not compatible with European law. Given that European law will not extend to the UK after a Brexit, it seems that these parts of the Act are fairly meaningless anyway - if you wanted to read it another way, it simply restricts Scottish Ministers.

    It does not prevent the UK leaving the EU, or make it otherwise impossible. It just renders some incidental parts of legislation fairly meaningless.
    Offline

    19
    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.
    No it isn't. A committee of the Lords noted an remark from Sir David Edward given during an evidence session. This was the extent of it--

    What legislative measures would be necessary to extinguish the application of EU law in the devolved nations? I have a specific question to Sir David, if I may. Do you think that the Scottish Parliament would be likely to grant legislative consent? If they did not, what would be the consequences?

    Sir David Edward: The formal consequence is this. Under Section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 the Scottish Parliament is bound by EU law, and, ditto, under Section 57(2) the Scottish Government are bound by EU law. Under the Scotland Bill that is going through Parliament at the moment, the Sewel convention will be recognised in Section 2 if it becomes an Act. Therefore, as I see it, you would have to amend the Scotland Act and, therefore, you would have to have legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament. I can envisage certain political advantages being drawn from not acceding to the legislative consent—creating difficulties about it. The basis of Clauses 1 and 2 of the new Scotland Bill is to embed power for the Scottish Parliament and the Sewel convention as part of the British constitution. You can say, “All right, maybe so, but we are going ahead anyway”.


    DE is wrong on a point regarding the Scotland Bill (now the Scotland Act 2016) - it did not extend the meaning of the Sewel convention to include amendments to the devolution legislation - this point was raised with the UK Government by the Scottish Parliament's Devolution Committee.

    In the wider, he recognises that there are legal restrictions placed on Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament to act compatibly with EU law. What he apparently fails to note is that under a Brexit scenario, EU law would simply cease to apply to the UK and thus Scotland: it wouldn't require overt repeal of the sections. Even if it did - and this is a fairly silly point now, because it doesn't - all it would mean is that Scottish devolved bodies could not act in certain ways.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    The reason all these remainer posts keep getting upvoted is because there's a lot of foreigners and teens on here :facepalm:

    Anyway 40% is a whole helluva lot of people! Too much to go ignored. It's not like 2,000 of em voted leave or something. MILLIONS bruv MILLIONS. She needs to stop dividing the country and just try to do her job as a politician and protect the country with moving on. Develop ideas, develop plans, and redevelop the country. It's almost like these people forget what their job is.
    10% remain vote in Scotland is relatively insignificant as 40% voted leave, however 2% UK majority for leave is the "biggest mandate ever"?

    Incidentally, her plan now is apparently to get Scotland to remain (and NI + Gibraltar) while Wales + England leave.

    To be honest this seems like the ideal scenario for everyone involved, including the leavers, given they'll still have an easy method to access free trade while giving up few to no concessions.

    Whether it'll happen or is a complete pipe dream is yet to be seen. I've heard that the previous Greenland/Denmark involvement somewhat gives reason to believe this is viable, but I wait to see.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Edmund Monfort)
    if the UK leaves they WILL get a referendum and chances are they WILL leave.
    Despite your VERY CONVINCING use of capitalisation, I don't think either of these things will happen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Incidentally, her plan now is apparently to get Scotland to remain (and NI + Gibraltar) while Wales + England leave.

    To be honest this seems like the ideal scenario for everyone involved, including the leavers, given they'll still have an easy method to access free trade while giving up few to no concessions.

    Whether it'll happen or is a complete pipe dream is yet to be seen. I've heard that the previous Greenland/Denmark involvement somewhat gives reason to believe this is viable, but I wait to see.
    Greenland/Denmark is the reverse, though. Denmark is a state and Greenland is an overseas territory within its wider realm. We have a similar position in the UK, where Gibraltar - an overseas territory - is effectively within the EU, while other overseas territories are not.

    However in both cases, Denmark and the UK are the member-states. They have external territories that are not part of that. The other way around doesn't really work - there has to be a member-state and that would have to be the United Kingdom.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Greenland/Denmark is the reverse, though. Denmark is a state and Greenland is an overseas territory within its wider realm. We have a similar position in the UK, where Gibraltar - an overseas territory - is effectively within the EU, while other overseas territories are not.

    However in both cases, Denmark and the UK are the member-states. They have external territories that are not part of that. The other way around doesn't really work - there has to be a member-state and that would have to be the United Kingdom.
    I don't disagree, it is totally the reverse as it was Greenland leaving Denmark and the EU. I'm watching the situation with interest, but I don't think it's as comparable as they claim it to be and will make a convincing argument.

    Would be nice if it worked out I guess?
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by 0to100)
    The reason all these remainer posts keep getting upvoted is because there's a lot of foreigners and teens on here :facepalm:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Anyway 40% is a whole helluva lot of people! Too much to go ignored. It's not like 2,000 of em voted leave or something. MILLIONS bruv MILLIONS. She needs to stop dividing the country and just try to do her job as a politician and protect the country with moving on. Develop ideas, develop plans, and redevelop the country. It's almost like these people forget what their job is
    .
    I have covered this issue extensively in one of my previous posts but I shall replicate parts of it here for the benefit of you and the others who may be reading this in future.

    I've seen many EU students on the Oxbridge threads who are desperate for the student loans and are worried about UK pulling out of EU.

    Two things will happen now that UK has pulled out of the EU on June 23. EU students will need to apply for student visas just like the rest of the students from outside the EU who want to study in the UK. These student visas are subject to stringent checks for fraudulent prior qualifications, criminal convictions, proof of healthy bank balance and evidence of English proficiency level.

    Next, the fee structure will be amended accordingly. EU students would need to pay International fees like all the students from the rest of the world, who for several decades have diligently paid up their costly tuition fees to the UK universities directly prior to the commencement of their studies, completed their degrees and then return to their home countries to seek employment.

    This is different to most of the EU students who take up these student loans, one after another and simply disappear after they've completed their studies without repaying the loans and the British government has to write off their bad debts. It's been reported several times and I'm really embarrassed when I read such articles. Why do EU students have such poor attitudes?


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672...g-tuition-fees

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ing-loans.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...pay-debts.html

    In recent weeks, we have seen several EU students on the Oxbridge and London unis threads in this forum say something to the effect that
    • they couldn't care less about Brexit
    • all they care about is receiving funding and loans so that they can pursue their studies in UK
    • their teachers have told them that UK's government are so slow to effect any change it would take forever to implement them
    You will be pleased to know that I took screenshots of those replies of these selfish EU students and have emailed them to Oxford, Cambridge and the five London universities. Let these admission tutors know what is really happening on the ground. They are smart people and I am certain that in future, they will factor in this reality when deciding who to make offers to.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    Yes, these are fair points.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    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.
    I don't really see it playing out like this but regardless of the outcome, it will be very interesting!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Absolute banter when they leave the union and Spain vetos their EU application to keep Catalonia quiet
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by L i b)
    No she doesn't. Not any more than the leader of the Shetland Islands Council (who voted to Leave the EEC in 1975) should have tried to block the UK entering it.

    It was a referendum that had a decisive result: standing in the way of that is not reasonable, never mind a "duty". Representatives from the various parts of the country don't get to double-guess the democratic judgement of the people.
    I wasn't actually talking about keeping the entirety of the U.K. in, frankly I think you lot should be forced to lie in the bed you've just made, but rather trying to find a way in which Scotland remains in the EU and maintains ties with the UK, not least since nationalism was a poor idea when oil prices were strong.


    I don't think that had a great deal to do with people's vote in the Scottish referendum: it focused on the currency, pooling and sharing and the dire economic consequences of leaving. Who told this "lie" exactly?

    I ask, because it's a lot of nonsense. Scottish independence would've resulted in Scotland finding itself outside of the EU. That was a perfectly credible point to raise and, if you were a Remainer - to fight against. No-one ever said that wouldn't change within the EU - indeed, the party of government had committed to a referendum on it.
    the better together campaign were quite clear that to stay in the EU, they had to vote no. As it is they're being dragged out of it against their will anyway - so promising staying in the EU for a no vote, particularly given at ~8 months before the general election the plans for an EU referendum to kill off party disputes that Cameron planned would have been taking shape, was rather unfaithful.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by leinad2012)
    Absolute banter when they leave the union and Spain vetos their EU application to keep Catalonia quiet
    Wouldn't play out that way, seceding from a non member state and joining, and seceding from a member state and joining are entirely different scenarios.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The SNP truly are living on Planet Nicola.

    I get incredibly fed up when the SNP moan about this issue. The 2014 Referendum was about whether citizens of Scotland want to be part of the decision-making of the UK, to which they agreed. This referendum was a UK-wide referendum, where no vote mattered more than any other. Remain lost, partly because Remain voters in Scotland couldn't be bothered to vote (as shown by the lower turnout there). The SNP wouldn't be moaning if in 2014, they won yet the whole of the South of Scotland voted to remain. Its pure hypocrisy.

    That and the fact that devolution is completely subservient to Parliament, which is sovereign, meaning she has no power whatsoever over constitutional matters such as this except through Parliament.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Greenland/Denmark is the reverse, though. Denmark is a state and Greenland is an overseas territory within its wider realm. We have a similar position in the UK, where Gibraltar - an overseas territory - is effectively within the EU, while other overseas territories are not.

    However in both cases, Denmark and the UK are the member-states. They have external territories that are not part of that. The other way around doesn't really work - there has to be a member-state and that would have to be the United Kingdom.
    This is not an accurate description of the Danish constitutional structure. Greenland is not an overseas territory. It is an integral part of the Danish realm . Greenland elects MPs to the Danish Parliament.

    The Greenland "solution" works like this, if it works at all. England (and possibly Wales) are Greenland. The United Kingdom remains as part of the EU but England (and possibly Wales) opt out. The rest of the UK (Scotland, NI and for these purposes Gib) remain.

    The issues are who represents the UK and what about non-devolved functions? I think the only way it would work, short of a truly federal state, would be if say Nicola or Arlene and McGuinness (there is a precedent for France to be represented by two politicians from opposite parties) or the Gibraltar fellow attended in rotation but not as representatives of their devolved administrations but rather as representatives of the UK government (this has happened with Holyrood ministers representing the UK at EU Council meetings.)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.