Should Scotland be an independent country?

Lol. I missed this reply.

Dude, are you actually reading his replies to you or just replying?

(a)Bollocks, where does it say once in a generation? That’s been debunked.
(b)disagree, will of the people and all that.
(C)you don’t seem very enlightening. Which cultural markers are not to your taste? Pray throw your pearls before this swine and tell me how I should define my Scottishness?

I also (and I shouldn't) object to your attempt to smear me as a yah (the festival etc).
I went to university in my thirties after working, at different times, in a factory, as a labourer, as a barman and as a stevedore. I'm sure I didn't meet you in the hold of a ship.

The Factortame case effectively made law. The application of EU law in the UK required law to be created.

And your point is what? Because you've saying a lot, without saying anything in this thread.

Read Ecks lips..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

Q: What are you asking me? I ask because you appear to be trying to use a case that is about interpreting the application of law to discuss making law - these are two different things, no?

A:The Factortame case effectively made law. The application of EU law in the UK required law to be created.

That’s been debunked.

From here: https://www.thenational.scot/news/18159096.fact-check-claim-snp-vowed-indyref-once-lifetime-opportunity/

The entire quote reads: “The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent”.

I'd disagree that that definitively says what they say it does. You can read it both ways.

The question back to you is how often is it reasonable to keep asking the same question?

^^So what? The UK agreed to the primacy of EU law, then had to apply it.

If the UK hadn't entered into that agreement (demonstrating that it could do so) then it wouldn't have had too. The rest is detail.

You're not making the point you think you are. Try again.

The rest is detail.

Righty.. That wasn't Lord Denning's view.

Are you genuinely making a point or just trolling?

Lord Denning

That bastion of logic.

You have one vote , same as me, did your father make you all work down t pit and stab you every morning before breakfast, your CV does not impress nor win arguments.

Now the populace are better informed I think it’s reasonable to ask again, same goes for brexit, if all the information we have now was available would that vote be different? I don’t think that can be revisited though, unfortunately.

Uch I only really come here to look at pictures of nice bikes then talk about nice bike. I'm not going to argue about how blindingly obvious it is that the union is on its last legs and Scottish independence is certainly coming.

But could you clarify what the cultural markers are that you mention? I'm not trying to be dick, I'd genuinely like to hear what they are and what makes them distasteful?

Lord Denning who would have hung the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4. That Lord Denning.

Thus far I have assumed that our Parliament, whenever it passes legislation, intends to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty. If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament. I do not however envisage any such situation. As I said in Blackburn v Attorney General ([1971] 2 All ER 1380 at 1383, [1971] 1 WLR 1037 at 1040): 'But if Parliament should do so, then I say we will consider that event when it happens.' Unless there is such an intentional and express repudiation of the Treaty, it is our duty to give priority to the Treaty. In the present case I assume that the United Kingdom intended to fulfil its obligations under art 119.

My point is that the integration of EU law in UK law was never straightforward. Never just details.

So would you go for a multiple choice where the out options are listed as some proposed for a 2nd Brexit ref?

Tartan, facepaint, the cultural cringe, the pretendy history

Now the populace are better informed

How? The National?

But do you understand the central tenant of dammit's argument?

That by both being able to agree to be bound by EU law, and by being able to rescind that agreement you prove that the British Parliament is supreme?

The secondary element is that when the UK was part of the decision making process as a member of the EU it was still making law to bind itself.

Now for all practical purposes while we can choose not to be bound by EU law, we still are.

You seem to be getting your information from murdoch and the Barclays, are you better informed?

Tartan has a value to the economy of which you’re so informed.
Face paint? Kids parties or the one who didn’t get paid by a football team?
The cultural cringe, what cultural cringe?
Pretendy history? You’ll have to explain that one, I thought history was factual.

Sorry could you enlighten me further, what cultural cringe? What pretend history?

You could make variations of that criticism of most countries.

Shanner. I thought that was a word my son made up and I just humoured him. I will now go apologise 🤣🤣