Catalan independance referendum (non-legal)
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Sendraks wrote:This is a conflation of two things.
1. The process for having a referendum, in the sense that anybody is beholden to act on the outcome.
2. The use of force against people participating in a referendum whether it has been agreed to or not.
I think we can agree that the use of force was unwarranted, so I'm not sure there is much mileage in discussing that. The more interesting discussion is on the first point about how the national elected body responds to devolved nations/nationalities/whatever, deciding to hold referendum's it hasn't agreed to and manages the outcome of that.
GrahamH wrote:I guess it depends whether you think the principle of self-determination has merit or not.
Thommo wrote:
I'd say they should resolve it with democratic processes. The problem here being that you're defending a group not doing that. Rather than seeking a democratic mandate to get the appropriate powers and legal backing the Catalan government took the decision on everyone's behalf.[/size]
GrahamH wrote:Thommo wrote:
I'd say they should resolve it with democratic processes. The problem here being that you're defending a group not doing that. Rather than seeking a democratic mandate to get the appropriate powers and legal backing the Catalan government took the decision on everyone's behalf.[/size]
I'm criticising the group that is denying the other group the use of a democratic process
GrahamH wrote:If the Catalan government had declared independence I would agree with you. But they only sought to ask the people concerned what they thought about the issue, and the people were not allowed to speak, by use of force.
GrahamH wrote:
We can draw a line between individual and society. Most of your carton examples were intentionally absurd.
GrahamH wrote:'No man is an island', but is it right for Madrid to dictate to the Catalans? Obviously you think it is.
GrahamH wrote:If the Scottish people agree with each other that they want to leave the union would you support sending in the troops to prevent them?
Thommo wrote:
It's not that simple. There's a reason that opinion polling put support at 45-50% and yet the ballot was 90% in support and that reason is the lack of legitimacy and lack of the ballot being representative.
Thommo wrote:This was known in advance, with many parties telling their supporters not to lend legitimacy to the poll that was ruled by the supreme court to be unconstitutional.
Thommo wrote:
Or perhaps, just perhaps, we need to consider that a ballot that is intentionally unrepresentative and not lawful isn't the same thing as "people agree[ing] with each that they want to leave the union".
GrahamH wrote:So, is there any chance something similar could happen here in the UK? Interest in IndyRef2 is low at the moment, if it revives, if Holyrood votes for it and an obstinate Westminster government tries to deny them could Scotland try to run a referendum and would English Bobbies storm the poling stations with batons drawn?
It seems almost unthinkable, but then what's happening in Spain is barely credible to me.
GrahamH wrote:Thommo wrote:
Or perhaps, just perhaps, we need to consider that a ballot that is intentionally unrepresentative and not lawful isn't the same thing as "people agree[ing] with each that they want to leave the union".
It is a tactic that could work. Undermine the poll in every possible way - tell people not to vote, raid polling stations. DO whatever it takes to make the result unrepresentative so that it can be ignored. That's not really democracy though, is it?
Thommo wrote:GrahamH wrote:Thommo wrote:
Or perhaps, just perhaps, we need to consider that a ballot that is intentionally unrepresentative and not lawful isn't the same thing as "people agree[ing] with each that they want to leave the union".
It is a tactic that could work. Undermine the poll in every possible way - tell people not to vote, raid polling stations. DO whatever it takes to make the result unrepresentative so that it can be ignored. That's not really democracy though, is it?
Nor is ignoring the rule of law and constitution.
ronmcd wrote:Thommo wrote:GrahamH wrote:Thommo wrote:
Or perhaps, just perhaps, we need to consider that a ballot that is intentionally unrepresentative and not lawful isn't the same thing as "people agree[ing] with each that they want to leave the union".
It is a tactic that could work. Undermine the poll in every possible way - tell people not to vote, raid polling stations. DO whatever it takes to make the result unrepresentative so that it can be ignored. That's not really democracy though, is it?
Nor is ignoring the rule of law and constitution.
Hypothetically, what would Alex Salmond's options have been had UK refused to allow a referendum?
anything but asking the Scottish people then? That just can't be allowed? We got away with it once because we thought we would win easily, but never again! Not now we know how close it can be.Thommo wrote:ronmcd wrote:Thommo wrote:GrahamH wrote:
It is a tactic that could work. Undermine the poll in every possible way - tell people not to vote, raid polling stations. DO whatever it takes to make the result unrepresentative so that it can be ignored. That's not really democracy though, is it?
Nor is ignoring the rule of law and constitution.
Hypothetically, what would Alex Salmond's options have been had UK refused to allow a referendum?
To seek to persuade parliament to change its mind on the issue, grant additional devolved powers or reach a compromise by lobbying, debate, organising protests and boycotts, writing letters, making the views of constituents know and so forth, the same as any other democratic issue.
GrahamH wrote:anything but asking the Scottish people then? That just can't be allowed? We got away with it once because we thought we would win easily, but never again! Not now we know how close it can be.Thommo wrote:
To seek to persuade parliament to change its mind on the issue, grant additional devolved powers or reach a compromise by lobbying, debate, organising protests and boycotts, writing letters, making the views of constituents know and so forth, the same as any other democratic issue.
You are denying the Scots their sovereignty. They can only leave if England allows them to?
Thommo wrote:
The sad thing is that you've actually said you would deny such a vote to all sorts of groups, just a few posts ago and in no uncertain terms, so it's not like you're even making a principled stand here, just a pointless jab.
GrahamH wrote:Thommo wrote:GrahamH wrote:Thommo wrote:and therefore mandates the Scottish Government to take forward discussions with the UK Government on the details of an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a referendum to be held
I take that to mean they will go through the cooperative process but seek to ensure an referendum can be held.
It doesn't seem like a meek 'we'll have a referendum if Westminster will let us'.
Yeah, alright whatever. It's not like I care.
I'll concede the point. Clearly there will be a referendum in autumn 2018. There's absolutely no way anyone could think otherwise.
Isn't that a double standard? If Madrid can deny permission then stop a Catalan referendum why would it not be right, and why would it not happen, that Westminster might deny and permission and stop a Scottish referendum? Perhaps you think it would be right but couldn't happen here?
Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests