THERESA May’s precious union of four countries is about to enter discussions with the 27 member countries of the EU over the terms for leaving it (Theresa May’s blocking of ScotRef is a democratic outrage, says Nicola Sturgeon, The National, March 17).
Membership of the Brexit Committee that will carry out these negotiations on behalf of the UK is made up entirely of MPs from England and there have been no negotiations to agree a joint position with the other member state parliaments.
Over the past few days it has emerged that the Prime Minister intends to refuse the Scottish Parliament a referendum on Scottish independence until she sees fit. May does not appear to be aware of the significance of such a course of action.
Loading article content
In what we are told is a union of equals, her action will have effectively ended the 300-year Union as one country no longer has the right to chose whether to stay in or leave it. Scotland’s status will change from being a member nation to a protectorate.
LEAVING Brexit out of the equation for the moment. There is an independence majority in the Scottish Parliament. Scots sent 56 Nationalist MPs to Westminster against three Unionists. In times past that would have been more than a sufficient mandate to negotiate for independence. By which bizarre definition of democracy do Unionists reckon that Scots should not be having an independence referendum? Do Unionists really want to lock Scots into the Union against their democratic will?
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Lesley Riddoch that calm persuasion will be the most effective way of convincing undecided scotref voters (The National, March 16, We need to keep the heid). It was also great to have it stressed that we are not hair-trigger umbrage-addicts possessed of a painfully short collective consternation-span. We are, for the most part, more likely to be able to pay heed to Coleridge’s perspective: “Advice should be like snow; the softer it falls, the longer it dwells upon, and sinks deeper into, the mind.”
UK PRIME Minister Theresa May has finally levelled with the people of Scotland, that the UK state needs to formally negotiate the leaving of the EU, as a single state, and not as a two-nation state, so no Section 30.
To this end, she has instructed her Secretary of State responsible for Scotland, and Scotland’s most senior Tory, Ruth Davidson, to make it clear to the people of Scotland that any other option is simply not acceptable, neither to her, nor to her Tory party.
Scotland should now call for the EU to properly deal with the emerging Scottish/EU nation in its final 27-nation ratification/refusal of the UK single state Brexit proposals.
NICOLA Sturgeon seems to be back-tracking on full membership of the EU single market, which was until a few days ago her ace card, or so she thought, and ferocious opposition to indyref2 has appeared in the shape of a petition that is heading toward an amazing 200,000 signatures, a mauling in the Scottish Parliament and an extremely firm, reasoned explanation from the Prime Minister of the blindingly obvious: how can, and why should, the Scottish people be asked to vote on something for which the terms and impact cannot be known for several years?
THERESA May says Scotland should not have an independence vote until the Brexit deal is clear. If Article 50 is triggered this month the deal will have to be decided in 18 months’ time (with a further six months for “consolidation”). Nicola Sturgeon has clearly stated that the Scottish Government would not hold a referendum until Autumn 2018 at the earliest, which is also in 18 months’ time. Am I missing something?
HOW can Theresa May claim it would be unfair to allow Scotland a referendum during the closing stages of Brexit negotiations when most if not all details will be known – unless of course she intends to keep us all in the dark? Yet she holds firmly to “Brexit means Brexit” on a referendum which had neither facts nor details and was decided by pure blind prejudice. Is a request for a referendum on an important constitutional matter by an elected parliament to be blocked by the dictat of an autocratic Westminster constituency MP?
WITH the failure of the UK parliament to hold the Tory government to account the PM is now free to barter all UK resources in the Brexit negotiations. It is hard to imagine that the removal of EU competencies from UK law will not result in the significant redefinition of devolved powers along with the loss of EU regional funding.
PRESUMABLY the UK would have accepted an EU refusal to hold a Brexit referendum as they felt timing was unsuitable?