Comments by "Andy Monaghan" (@229andymon) on "Richard J Murphy"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loc4725 You put it far too simply.
The way you explain it, Scotland has no more right to determine our own future than, say, Yorkshire. That is not the case, like it or not, and the reason why is what undermines your POV.
The union was, like most unions are when created (including the many that have disintegrated) assumed to be forever and no scenario was envisaged, or plan allowed for, dissolution. If we take the Soviet Union for example, they had no route for its constituent states to secede either. But they did. There was no accepted route for Norway to leave union with Sweden, but it did. In fact history is replete with such examples of states that did precisely what you insist Scotland can’t. Thankfully.
Because each claim for independence must and should be taken on its own merits. For example, although the debate must be an English one, and not for Scots, were Yorkshire to claim independence, I assume the attitude of Westminster would be very different to that toward Scotland, and would be exactly that of Madrid’s attitude to Catalonian independence (that it has no “right” to it). It’s the same attitude you share towards Scotland.
But we are *not* Yorkshire and Westminster has accepted that we are different and must be treated so. The 2014 referendum established that very clearly. This is not disputed by Westminster.
Westminster’s attitude currently is that we *do* have the right to secede, but they are not currently inclined to allow us to begin executing that right. It is not the same as Madrid’s attitude to Catalonia, or yours to Scotland.
Therefore - your “Catalonia comparison” is basically wrong, it doesn’t fit the current reality of where UK and Scotland currently are - becalmed in a cynical and cowardly democratic morass of Westminster’s deliberate making.
Besides, let me paint a very possible (I would say probable) outcome of your attitude if writ into statute (perish the thought) - either Westminster walks back it’s acceptance of Scotland’s right to self-determination, or, runs it’s own all-UK referendum, which would result in a rejection of Scottish independence.
Both would establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, we are kept in the union with no means to escape it, if we chose. What a nightmare for *all* of us!
Do you believe that viable? Do you believe me and those like me would accept that? Do you believe England wants that - would you want it? No one with any sense would.
You haven’t thought this all the way through.
1
-
@loc4725 Again you come back with "you signed up for this" when that is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is the current UK govts attitude to whether Scots have the right to self determination now , regardless of what we signed up for or not in 1707.
PM M Thatcher was unequivocally clear that Scotland has such a right, and stated so, a view backed by PM J Major.
Following the 2014 ref, the all party Smith Commission, established by the UKG, concluded nothing in the ensuing Edinburgh Agreement could stop Scottish independence in the future - if the Scottish people so choose. Again that is crystal clear.
If that's not acceptance of a right to self determination I'm struggling to know what is. But .. please show me your evidence it is the position of the UKG that we do *not*, rather than the current situation is not suitable for it.
The SC judgement you refer to does not, incidentally, it refers to a specific legal position, not on the right of self determination.
Incidentally, have no fear of us hanging on and "bothering" you (like wayward children) after we foxtrot oscar from the awful Brit union. Why on earth do you think we want to leave it..?
We won't be looking back....
1
-
@loc4725 Your argument is essentially, and exclusively, de jure, mine is de facto. I concede yours, you reject mine.
You say there is no constitutional right, within the UK framework, that Scotland can draw on to secede from the UK union - that is true. If you regard that alone as the “winning factor” for you - well done! You win. Indeed I have said as much in a past comment where I say the UKG can at any time walk back it’s de facto acceptance of Scotland’s right to self determination, established via the 2014 referendum debates and outcomes. Whether Westminster accepts Scotland has the right to secede or not is, and will be until we leave, entirely up to it. The same applies to N Ireland incidentally, where the UKG, at this point, has formally accepted NI could secede. It could simply reverse that position too. It won’t though, because, again, de facto in this case also trumps de jure.
However, you cannot deny the UKG accepted then (2014) the principle of Scottish independence, and you cannot now prove it has subsequently reversed that position. The Edinburgh Agreement nowhere states, or even alludes, to this precedent being unrepeatable, which it would have to in normal circumstances were that to be it’s position. But, again, regardless of it’s current position, it could at any point, do as it pleases, “proving” your de jure case.
If Westminster wanted to establish your position, all it has to do is formally state that Scotland does not have a right to self determination. Why does it not do so, and instead fannys about with pathetic excuses for a real position such as mooting the statements by Sturgeon and Salmond (“once in a generation”) that you so accurately describe as meaningless?
The SG could appeal directly to the UN on the basis of self-détermination, but that response would be by no means certain and in any case, even if successful, UK could simply disregard. It is in control of its position on the question, not the UN. Personally I expect such a case would fail, but by that point it wouldn’t be de jure rights that would be the driving force, rather de facto. If we ever get there, I suspect the UK would be (effectively) over. Could we get there? Until the recent cowardly and cynical Westminster blockade against indyref2 I would’ve said no, but now that Westminster is deliberately painting the SNP into a corner, I’m not so sure.
Instead where we are now is a position where the Indy movement has been forced by Westminster arrogance and fear to consider other routes. Would a successful SNP appeal to make the next Scottish GE a mandate to begin secession talks with UKG a de jure right? No. Would the UK union therefore be safe? No. De jure vs de facto.
Westminster is raising the stakes, but independence is by no means cardless. Our strength is in the fact we only need to win once, and (in spite of short term Brit propaganda to the contrary) we aren’t going away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adenwellsmith6908 You’re running out of rope. The statements made at the time by 2 ex SNP political leaders carry absolutely zero official capacity or authority. There is *nothing* in the Edinburgh Declaration, that facilitated Indyref1, to say that must prevent us from another choice. In any case, how can it be we are offered no chance to change or minds, and who is in control of such a decision to offer us no such chance? Clearly not any amount of Scottish votes you care to mention.
10 years later, the democratically elected Scottish government was mandated to inform Westminster we want them to facilitate Indyref2. You cannot, with any seriousness, tell me, if Westminster can refuse that, we have the right to leave the UK. We simply do not. The UK union is involuntary, it’s as clear as that and I suspect you’re well aware that is the case.
And to repeat, once again, if we were to swap England with Scotland in this scenario, England would be an independent country.
Not because English votes are “worth more” - because there are just far more of them.
If you can leave if *you* decide, and we cant, you can’t escape the inherent unfairness of that. You cant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adenwellsmith6908 Nope, the “rules” are those created by Westminster, the ex SNP leadership had “views”. But… even if that was true, if one SNP leadership thought something 10 years ago you still haven’t even tried to explain to me why later leaders can’t change that. What political party ever operated any other way? It’s a ridiculous notion.
Is this all you have to justify imprisoning Scotland in your horrible union?
Look, it’s very simple, if we’re not allowed to change our mind, it’s not a functioning democracy, that goes without saying. If we’re not allowed to change our mind, it’s not a voluntary union. If we’re not allowed to change our mind, the union is undemocratic, unfair and unequal.
Just admit it and say you want to keep us - coz you don’t want to lose us and don’t give a flying fandango whether it’s fair or democratic or whatever. Just be honest, it’s not like you’re making a decent argument or anything.
1
-
@adenwellsmith6908 I’m well aware what Salmond did, you don’t have to tell me, I was here at the time.
So, you obviously have no intention of explaining why we’re unable to change our mind on this political issue, in spite of us telling you in no uncertain terms that’s exactly what’s happened. Any other party can obviously do so, on any other issue, but on this issue we, uniquely, can’t. It’s a unionist mystery. We must just suck up this Westminster diktat, that all.
End of conversation, it’s been a wonderful exchange of views, you’ve been a hugely informed, fair and convincing champion of the unionist cause.
In conclusion, I’m just wondering if you’d be happy accepting our independence in the event Indy parties do actually manage to get a majority of Scottish MPs.
Yes, I know you can’t see that happening, but I also reckon you’d be very reluctant to accept *any* circumstances where we cast off tne dead hand of Westminster misrule, so pardon me for being very sceptical on that account.
We’ll have to prise your fingers off us one by one, won’t we?
1
-
@adenwellsmith6908 Ah, some actual points rather than the tired old “once in a generation” stuff.
Good.
Firstly, the English will never be given the chance to vote us out. If Westminster is running scared of Indyref2 (oh yes it is) you think they’d risk asking you? Not a chance, my friend. This may surprise you, but I have a lot of respect for the English people and I believe if you asked them if they want to “get rid of us” they’d say no, but… I also reckon if you asked them if they should interfere (unlike their leaders) in our decisions regarding independence they’d also say no. Go ahead with that question instead, would be my advice. Now let’s get to your “negotiation”.
The SNPs position on currency is that we move to a Scottish currency as soon as practically possible and use the UK£ in the meantime but not in a monetary union. You can’t stop that, btw…
You will not be required to insure Scottish banks. RBS has said when we go Indy it will relocate it’s HQ to London so you will insure that.
Sadly, because England voted to leave the EU and Scotland will rejoin it once we escape the UK union, freedom of movement will be ruled via those channels. Until then I expect you’re wrong and we’ll have freedom of movement as that will suit both countries. I’ll remind you Scotland buys more from England than sells to it and our imports from England will make us one of UKs top export markets. I don’t think market hungry Jimmy no mates Brexit UK will choose to damage that relationship, certainly not for petty spite.
The Scottish government will pay Scottish pensions. This wouldn’t be the case if UK had a pension pot, like sensible countries, but rather pays their unfortunate pensioners the pittance it does from current account. You’ll be aware I’m sure just how atrocious the UK pension is - one of the lowest in Europe. That’s not a bar that’ll be difficult to get over, eh?
Any other questions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1