bennett123 wrote:

Not sure when a generation became 40+ years.

petertenthije wrote:

That’s Boris. Bravely postponing making tough decisions till he is well into retirement.

Why was Brexit not a “once in a generation” referendum to be done around 2050?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Boris, the second coming of Ethelred the Unready. Any Vikings on the horizon.

T18 wrote:

Question for the Scots, if independent would they seek to join the EU?

A101 wrote:

You expecting the Danes to invade GB, that would then mean the EU would have to support, I guess the French would happily support such an initiative.

T18 wrote:

Question for the Scots, if independent would they seek to join the EU?

tommy1808 wrote:

T18 wrote:

Question for the Scots, if independent would they seek to join the EU?

I think the remaining UK having the power to veto Scotland´s EU Membership was the main reason the last referendum failed.

best regards
Thomas

Olddog wrote:

Why France would like to invade England? For your wonderful climate?
Only if you finally find theses unicorns......

Olddog wrote:

Someday you will realize that we are in the 21 century and not 1800 ....

Dieuwer wrote:

Boris is the worst British politician ever. He seems to want to break-up everything.

If you don't like me – I won't be here forever. If you don't like this government – it won't last forever. But if you leave the UK – that will be forever," he said.

Dutchy wrote:

With his remarks, Johnson opened Pandora's box. A new Scottish referendum is on the table, timeline is secondary.

The Conservatives stand to lose, current polls suggest. Labor hasn't got a majority, so perhaps the SNP could be kingmaker, helping Labor to get its majority. In return, they could get a referendum. Or get the right to decide on a referendum in Edenborough, instead of Westminster.

.

Dutchy wrote:

As predicted, one of the perks of Brexit.

bennett123 wrote:

Amazing that anyone thinks that BJ supports a second referendum.

Simply kicked into the long grass.

Well into the long grass.

Aesma wrote:

Who is ready to bet that by saying that he just gave some more points to the SNP ?

I think BoJo should ignore Scotland completely, as if it didn't exist, it couldn't be more damaging that what he's doing now.

zkojq wrote:

This shows how fundamentally democratic the EU is compared to the UK. If an EU member wishes to leave they can do so at will by invoking Article 50.

Tory Fisheries Minister did not read Brexit deal which costs Scottish fleet £1 million a day in losses
The UK Fisheries Minister was too busy with Christmas to focus on reading the Brexit fishing deal with the EU.

Fishing minister Victoria Prentis, the under-secretary of State for Farming and Fishing, admitted she did not read the fisheries deal when it was published on Christmas Eve because she was “very busy organising the local Nativity trail”.

Giving evidence to a Lords committee, the minister admitted “things are tricky at the moment” on exports but said her team is “working hard” to resolve issues as they arose.

Scottish fishermen threaten to dump rotten shellfish outside British parliament

LONDON (Reuters) - Scottish fishermen have threatened to dump rotten shellfish outside the British parliament after their deliveries to the European Union were blocked by post-Brexit red tape.

The owners of two fishing companies said the introduction of health certificates, customs declarations and checks since Britain left the EU’s single market at the start of this year had hit their delivery systems.

In a video posted on Twitter, Jamie McMillan of Lochfyne Seafarms warned British Prime Minister Boris Johnson that “if Scottish exporters can’t get their product to market next week, we will be at the gates of (the Palace of) Westminster and we’ll be dumping our shellfish on your doorstep, rotten.”

“We are fighting for survival here,” he said. “Get it sorted and get it sorted now.”

A second owner, Santiago Buesa of SB Fish, said: “I have plenty to dump as we can’t get it sold because our markets have been shut down due to Brexit.”

Aesma wrote:

I think BoJo should ignore Scotland completely, as if it didn't exist

Scotland’s top civil court has dismissed a case which sought a ruling that the Scottish parliament could hold an independence referendum without permission from London, saying it was premature and hypothetical.

A101 wrote:

Interesting the Scottish Independence movement went to court about a 2nd referenda, I guess Nicola has her work cut out for her if she wants another referenda

Scotland’s top civil court has dismissed a case which sought a ruling that the Scottish parliament could hold an independence referendum without permission from London, saying it was premature and hypothetical.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN2A51BH

zkojq wrote:

Meanwhile a member of the UK cannot even have a referendum about leaving - let alone actually doing so - without Westminster's blessing.

TWA772LR wrote:

Isn't the purpose of a head of state to preserve the union of their nation?

Arion640 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Interesting the Scottish Independence movement went to court about a 2nd referenda, I guess Nicola has her work cut out for her if she wants another referenda

Scotland’s top civil court has dismissed a case which sought a ruling that the Scottish parliament could hold an independence referendum without permission from London, saying it was premature and hypothetical.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN2A51BH

Create a federal UK and this all goes away. The tories can choose to keep holding on to the countries powers at Westminster or have no country at all.

A101 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Interesting the Scottish Independence movement went to court about a 2nd referenda, I guess Nicola has her work cut out for her if she wants another referenda



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN2A51BH

Create a federal UK and this all goes away. The tories can choose to keep holding on to the countries powers at Westminster or have no country at all.

Don’t think that could happen at present as I imagine that would mean a very dramatic constitutional change in the way the UK operates and each of the four nations would have to agree. I also think it would be grounds for another referenda on that subject alone

I haven’t really looked into what it would take to change but I do like the idea of a specific codified constitution

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit ... es/162.pdf

Arion640 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Interesting the Scottish Independence movement went to court about a 2nd referenda, I guess Nicola has her work cut out for her if she wants another referenda

Scotland’s top civil court has dismissed a case which sought a ruling that the Scottish parliament could hold an independence referendum without permission from London, saying it was premature and hypothetical.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKBN2A51BH

Create a federal UK and this all goes away. The tories can choose to keep holding on to the countries powers at Westminster or have no country at all.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Create a federal UK and this all goes away. The tories can choose to keep holding on to the countries powers at Westminster or have no country at all.

Don’t think that could happen at present as I imagine that would mean a very dramatic constitutional change in the way the UK operates and each of the four nations would have to agree. I also think it would be grounds for another referenda on that subject alone

I haven’t really looked into what it would take to change but I do like the idea of a specific codified constitution

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit ... es/162.pdf

3 of the 4 constitute parts of the UK already operate there own assemblies/parliaments, all that remains is to give England it's own parliament.

Parliament remains sovereign, and retains the power to amend the devolution Acts or to legislate on anything that has been devolved. That said, the government has made clear it will not normally legislate on a devolved matter without the consent of the devolved legislature, which requires a Legislative Consent Motion.

The Roles and Responsibilities of Federal, State and Local Governments

The Federal Government
The Federal or Commonwealth Government is responsible for the conduct of national affairs. Its areas of responsibility are stated in the Australian Constitution and include defence and foreign affairs; trade, commerce and currency; immigration; postal services, telecommunications and broadcasting; air travel; most social services and pensions. The Federal Government is also involved, mainly through funding, in many things largely carried out by the States, such as health, education, environmental issues, industrial relations, etc.

State or Territory Government
Under the Australian Constitution, the States are responsible for everything not listed as a Federal responsibility. However, sometimes both levels are involved. Major State responsibilities include schools, hospitals, conservation and environment, roads, railways and public transport, public works, agriculture and fishing, industrial relations, community services, sport and recreation, consumer affairs, police, prisons and emergency services. Each state has its own constitution setting out its system of government.

Local Government
Local Government areas vary greatly in size and character. The Sydney area is divided into about 35 cities, municipalities or shires, each with its own local council. The bigger country centres such as Bathurst or Albury have city or municipal councils. Large but less populated country areas, with a number of small towns and large rural areas, are usually shires with a Shire Council based in one of the larger towns. The power of local governments is controlled by Acts of State Parliament such as the Local Government Acts. Local Councils are concerned with matters close to our homes, such as building regulations and development, public health, local roads and footpaths, parks and playing fields, libraries, local environmental issues, waste disposal, and many community services.

TWA772LR wrote:

Isn't the purpose of a head of state to preserve the union of their nation?

Aesma wrote:

To go back to Scotland, I think it's too late to keep it, but Boris should at least try. For example by giving in on the referendum, and actually doing something to convince people to vote to stay in.

par13del wrote:

Why, what we are hearing now is that the people of Scotland want to be in the EU, why should the UK try to prevent the people's wishes?
Look at Brexit, the people voted for Brexit and confirmed it by electing a Brexit government, the unholy mess that is going on now is because folks fought for years to deny the people what they wanted. Unless you think that the SNP unlike the Brexiters have not told any lies in their independence campaign?

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

To go back to Scotland, I think it's too late to keep it, but Boris should at least try. For example by giving in on the referendum, and actually doing something to convince people to vote to stay in.

Why, what we are hearing now is that the people of Scotland want to be in the EU, why should the UK try to prevent the people's wishes?
Look at Brexit, the people voted for Brexit and confirmed it by electing a Brexit government, the unholy mess that is going on now is because folks fought for years to deny the people what they wanted. Unless you think that the SNP unlike the Brexiters have not told any lies in their independence campaign?

ElPistolero wrote:

par13del wrote:

Why, what we are hearing now is that the people of Scotland want to be in the EU, why should the UK try to prevent the people's wishes?
Look at Brexit, the people voted for Brexit and confirmed it by electing a Brexit government, the unholy mess that is going on now is because folks fought for years to deny the people what they wanted. Unless you think that the SNP unlike the Brexiters have not told any lies in their independence campaign?

The SNP seem to have their own view on how to run an independence campaign:

“IF the Yes movement has a brain, then it’s called Andrew Wilson – the man who’s crafted the SNP’s vision of independence.
...

When it comes to winning independence, “the biggest lesson is to learn how not to do it from Brexit – don’t go low, don’t go populist, as even if you were to win on such a prospectus the aftermath would be really bad”. Wilson is concerned about any hint of populism in the Yes movement. “It would worry me as A, I don’t think it would win, and B, if it did win it would be more like what we’re experiencing with Brexit.

That’s why he is bitterly opposed to false promises, ideas like Modern Monetary Theory with its plans to print money, and claims that independence is a panacea”
...
The strategy has to be “to tell the truth and win the argument … paint a truthful picture of how we can earn the right to a better society by hard work over time”. Independence, he acknowledges, “isn’t going to be delivered overnight”.

“The tone has to be right, we need to be seen by the rest of the world and the UK as the opposite of those prosecuting the case for Brexit”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/188 ... ew-wilson/

A101 wrote:

The main arguments have been fought over in 2014 Scottish Referenda, those arguments won't fundamentally change.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

par13del wrote:

Why, what we are hearing now is that the people of Scotland want to be in the EU, why should the UK try to prevent the people's wishes?
Look at Brexit, the people voted for Brexit and confirmed it by electing a Brexit government, the unholy mess that is going on now is because folks fought for years to deny the people what they wanted. Unless you think that the SNP unlike the Brexiters have not told any lies in their independence campaign?

The SNP seem to have their own view on how to run an independence campaign:

“IF the Yes movement has a brain, then it’s called Andrew Wilson – the man who’s crafted the SNP’s vision of independence.
...

When it comes to winning independence, “the biggest lesson is to learn how not to do it from Brexit – don’t go low, don’t go populist, as even if you were to win on such a prospectus the aftermath would be really bad”. Wilson is concerned about any hint of populism in the Yes movement. “It would worry me as A, I don’t think it would win, and B, if it did win it would be more like what we’re experiencing with Brexit.

That’s why he is bitterly opposed to false promises, ideas like Modern Monetary Theory with its plans to print money, and claims that independence is a panacea”
...
The strategy has to be “to tell the truth and win the argument … paint a truthful picture of how we can earn the right to a better society by hard work over time”. Independence, he acknowledges, “isn’t going to be delivered overnight”.

“The tone has to be right, we need to be seen by the rest of the world and the UK as the opposite of those prosecuting the case for Brexit”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/188 ... ew-wilson/

Agree two sides to every story though. But I will state up front I do not appose a 2nd referenda or even a border poll in NI for that matter and if they choose to leave than so be it it should be without recriminations

The main arguments have been fought over in 2014 Scottish Referenda, those arguments wont fundamentally change. If the current UKGov really wants to put a dampener on the whole the independence bid then they can look no further than Canada and the Clarity Act, unlike Brexit and the exist from the EU there is no framework in place to guide each side.

There are a couple of options before UKGov that could work in its favour to keep the status quo they could start negotiations before a 2nd referenda and which would give the Scottish a general outline of would happen if they voted to leave. Which could be two faceted; one where they became truly independent and perhaps continue to trade freely with there biggest export market rUK or on what that happens if they choose to re-join the EU as being a member of the EU any agreement would be null and void soon as they become members.

Under the UK constitution and the powers invested within Westminster the UKGov holds the key on how a 2nd referenda is to take place. The Canadian Clarity Act and the rulings within Canadian Supreme Court which concluded that Quebec cannot secede unilaterally under Canadian or international law. If the SNP wants its 2nd referenda its going to be under Westminster direction and control on how and when that happens.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Agree two sides to every story though. But I will state up front I do not appose a 2nd referenda or even a border poll in NI for that matter and if they choose to leave than so be it it should be without recriminations

The main arguments have been fought over in 2014 Scottish Referenda, those arguments wont fundamentally change. If the current UKGov really wants to put a dampener on the whole the independence bid then they can look no further than Canada and the Clarity Act, unlike Brexit and the exist from the EU there is no framework in place to guide each side.

There are a couple of options before UKGov that could work in its favour to keep the status quo they could start negotiations before a 2nd referenda and which would give the Scottish a general outline of would happen if they voted to leave. Which could be two faceted; one where they became truly independent and perhaps continue to trade freely with there biggest export market rUK or on what that happens if they choose to re-join the EU as being a member of the EU any agreement would be null and void soon as they become members.

Under the UK constitution and the powers invested within Westminster the UKGov holds the key on how a 2nd referenda is to take place. The Canadian Clarity Act and the rulings within Canadian Supreme Court which concluded that Quebec cannot secede unilaterally under Canadian or international law. If the SNP wants its 2nd referenda its going to be under Westminster direction and control on how and when that happens.

Not sure what your point is. Canada and the UK have different state structures. How is a ruling on provincial powers in a federal state relevant to a unitary state?

ElPistolero wrote:

In any event, I didn’t know Canadian law applied in the UK. Certainly news to me.

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, Brexit sets all kinds of precedents for leaving unions - both good and bad for the Scots - that aren’t going to go away. Tying the process up and trying to undermine it with potentially hypocritical approaches isn’t a winning proposition in the medium-to/long term. Something about making ones bed.