Leaderboard

What is the basis of your comment? The Edinburgh agreement came about because Westminster agreed to an exception from the Scotland Act 1998 to allow the Scottish Government to hold a referendum. Similarly, they will need Westminster's consent for a 2nd referendum. What would happen in the event of a 2nd referendum producing a vote to leave is less clear. Whilst the SNP complain bitterly about the current confusion around Brexit, the situation around the break up of the UK would be even more complex for a variety of reasons and the SNP has done nothing to provide the voter with any idea what the process and terms of separation would be. For a start, Brexit is simply (although it is not that simple!) a question of an individual state deciding to leave a collective. Scottish Independence would be the splitting of a sovereign state in which the day to day life is far more entwined with the infrastructure of the the rest of the UK than the UK's is with Europe. It is all very well for Scotland to vote to leave, but what would the terms of that be? Because the UK is a sovereign state and unlike with Brexit, the UK would need to agree for Scotland to leave. It will agree when the Westminster Parliament is happy with the terms of the severance - terms which the Scots may not be happy with and would not have voted for had they been agreed prior to a referendum. Of course, Holyrood could always make a Unilateral Declaration of Independence but it wouldn't get much in the way international support if it did that. This is why we really ought to think things through a bit more seriously as a nation. An independence referendum should be about giving an instruction to Government to negotiate a package for an independent Scotland. When a package is finalised, that should then be put to the people to vote on whether or not we wanted to accept the package. In that way, a Yes vote at the 2nd stage could be viewed as a clear, settled and informed decision by the electorate. For such an important and irrevocable issue we should be demanding nothing less from our constitution.

Little chance against Celtic?...............Who is this wonderful Celtic that all the pundits are raving about?.................Two dodgy draws against richer opposition and they think the world is at their feet. Richie Foran got it very right tonight with ;his comments on STV regarding Celtic not being as far ahead in the field as is being made out to be. Oh yes they ;have some excellent players or players who could be and should be excellent but as a team they like the Dons, are still a side of good individuals. The two most improved Teams in the league are ICT and the Rangers who play as Teams then you have Hearts and St. Johnstone who have also improved and are stabilising as Teams with their form currently ahead of last season. No Celtic are not that far ahead of the others, in points at the moment yes but there is a long way to go in the league and despite their wealth I can foresee a number of difficult matches ahead for them. Fingers crossed OFW will be back, his experience is vital for this match and that is no slur on anybody else. We will miss Tremarco but what an able deputy we have in David Raven. I am not in any despairing mode for this match the lads will give it a real go and we should acquit ourselves well.

Just a quick post to say that this is still very much on the cards. Hope to be in a position to give a major update this side of xmas. We'll also be looking to recruit more fan volunteers to assist with delivery of things like match updates, commentary and some other projects.....and not just the first team.

I'll just stick these here, get the chat going.....

I don't have a problem with admitting my ignorance on the constitutional position here. I started my previous post asking you to back up your earlier statement, but rather than do that you chose to criticise me for my ignorance rather than enlighten us. There are 2 questions here. 1. Can Westminster prevent Holyrood having a 2nd referendum? 2. In the event of vote for Independence in a Scottish referendum, can Westminster block the creation of an Independent Scotland? These are perfectly reasonable questions asked with a view to establishing basic facts and are completely separate from any debate on whether Westminster should or would block if a referendum was 1) proposed and 2) subsequently held. My view on 1) is that Westminster can block it - a point which the Scottish Government themselves have made clear in their consultation document on the draft independence bill. My view on 2) is less clear. Internationally, countries have achieved independence in a wide variety of circumstances - sometimes peacefully and all too often following bloodshed. Peaceful routes to internationally accepted independence are won when the "mother country" agrees to the country's independence but I am not personally aware of any international law which binds a "mother country" to accept secession following a referendum. In this context it is pertinent to note that the Republic of Ireland only gained its independence once the Westminster Parliament had passed the Irish Free State Constitution Act in 1922. Precedent in the UK would seem to suggest, therefore that independence for Scotland would require the Westminster Parliament to pass an act of parliament to allow Scotland to secede from the Union. I fully accept that there are probably different arguments too, for instance there may be arguments based on the 1707 Act of Union. I simply don't know. Kingsmills, if you are claiming superior knowledge on these issues, perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten us with your views on the 2 fundamental questions I have posed.

Don't ever let your complete ignorance of the matter get in the way of a good #SNP Bad rant.