"THE “once in a generation” phrase parroted by Conservatives in their attempt to block a second independence vote is nothing but a slogan and has no constitutional relevance, one of the architects of the Edinburgh Agreement has said."
"The context of Northern Ireland with the ending of the Troubles then raises an interesting point. Northern Ireland has, under British law, a guarantee that the Secretary of State will consider any fresh referendum on Irish unity 7 years after an initial referendum."
If a similar definition of a 'political' generation were applied to the will of the Scottish people to pursue #ScottishIndependence 🏴, 7 years will have lapsed since #indyref 2014, on 18 September 2021.
"In a report published in April, Martin said that the Union had been one of consent up to at least 2014, when the first independence vote was held."
"However, he said that any attempts to block a second vote would fundamentally alter the nature of the Union, making it one based on coercion rather than consent."
This represents a substantive change and one actioned without consultation that might be considered to void Union.
This represents a substantive change and one actioned without consultation that might be considered to void Union.
Contract terms are legally binding on all parties that are signatories of these contracts.
The actions of all parties are either judged to be within the terms of the contract or in violation of the terms of the contract, rendering it null and void.
The actions of all parties are either judged to be within the terms of the contract or in violation of the terms of the contract, rendering it null and void.
Actions of all parties within the terms of any contract are subject to the relevant laws applicable at that time.
Retrospective changes in law with the sole purpose of altering the terms of a contract with intent to render legal actions illegal cannot be permissable?
Retrospective changes in law with the sole purpose of altering the terms of a contract with intent to render legal actions illegal cannot be permissable?
Yet, UK Government demonstrates disregard for domestic and international laws and treaties.
Is it permissable for UK Government to change the law to exempt itself from scrutiny, accountability and consequences for law breaking?
Is it permissable for UK Government to change the law to exempt itself from scrutiny, accountability and consequences for law breaking?
Conduct of UK Government and evidence of innumerable examples of law breaking can be regarded as an 'unreliable partner' in any contracts, agreements and treaties.
EU have found themselves to be the victim of the illegal actions perpetrated by UK Government.
EU have found themselves to be the victim of the illegal actions perpetrated by UK Government.
"The constitutional expert also hit out at the Scottish Conservatives who had been speaking on the show saying that they did not wish to see a second independence vote and that there would not be one."
Consent within the terms of the Acts of Union 1707 and subsequent devolution agreements cannot be withheld on the grounds that outcomes resulting from that consent may or may not suit the agenda of the party giving consent, i.e. UK Government.
Democracy vs Dictatorship
Democracy vs Dictatorship
*My comment is a question not a statement of fact.
p.s. The refusal of UK Government to give consent to #indyref2 is not limited to the referendum but seeks to deny the democratic rights of ALL citizens of Scotland to choose to exercise self-determination and self-governance.
What of Democracy & Human Rights re: discrimination?
What of Democracy & Human Rights re: discrimination?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
