Byron wrote:

jez9999 wrote:You've got to admit, if the British had been a bit more bloodthirsty they could've done a Chechnya on Ireland's ass and today Ireland would comfortably be part of the UK.

How much more bloodthirsty could the British state have gotten? Even more massacres? Perhaps some mustard gas?

A hell of a lot more. The British were pussycats by Russian or American standards.

The entire Irish war of independence cost ~2000 lives. More people died in NYC on 9/11. The Chechen Wars cost 100k - 200k lives. Or what about the time when Abraham Lincoln forced half of the USA to remain by force? About 600k dead, 400k wounded. Looks like the British were trying very carefully to minimize the casualties during the Irish war of independence, which is probably why the Irish succeeded.

zoon wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

zoon wrote:

Byron wrote:
How, pray tell, will the Commons "assert full control" if the Scottish courts and Scottish Parliament rwefuse to recognize their right to be bloody fools?

Order Police Scotland to arrest the Scottish Government? The same Police Scotland that's under the authority of the Scottish courts, and whose boss is appointed by the Scottish Justice Secretary. Order the British Army in? An army packed with Scottish regiments and Scottish soldiers.

The British government tried this kind of authoritarian lunacy in Ireland at the dawn of the 20th century, the result being a savage war of independence, followed by civil war and partition. I suspect even Whitehall has learned its lesson, and knows that, regardless of the ramblings of a Victorian authoritarian, it governs by consent, or not at all.

Westminster doesn't in practice have the power to pass thoroughly unpopular laws in England either, the kind of unpopularity that would lead to half the population rioting; it's not a question of Scotland or Scottish courts being special in that respect.

I'm sure that's true, but the question here is more about representation, and whether an institution which the majority of Scottish people feel represents them can be taken away without their approval. The equivalent in England would be someone (monarch?) disbanding Westminster.

Those two situations are sort-of comparable, but only one is massively more likely both practically and legally, and something people actually are concerned about. The other not so much

Is anyone in Westminster even remotely talking about abolishing Holyrood? Some Scottish nationalists may be using the hypothetical possibility to encourage anti-Westminster sentiment, but as various people here are saying, it would be politically unfeasible.

No, as far as I know nobody is suggesting Holyrood is to be abolished, and I can't be arsed going back to check how this started to be discussed. But I think Gordon Brown brought it up most recently, at the very end of the campaign, "vowing" Holyrood would be legally permanent.

Gordon Brown, the man who now wants the public to sign a petition to Cameron to try and pressure Cameron to do what Brown told us was guaranteed, if we voted no. Gordon Brown: fuck you.

Panderos, yes, the Act of Union referred to Scots law and the Church of Scotland. Precedents aren't exact: they create transferable principles. What this one does is establish that Westminster's power is limited.

That done, a court asks what underpins that limitation; in this case, where sovereignty resides. The argument's then made that it resides in the Scottish people, which can adduce the Declaration of Arbroath, the consistent rejection of parliamentary sovereignty in Scottish courts, the Scottish Constitutional Convention, and popular consensus. The Court of Session could also refer to foreign law, particularly EU law, and laws like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As for the lack of a Scottish parliament until 1998 establishing an absence of popular sovereignty, it can simply be argued that the Scottish people devolved ( ) their sovereign power to Westminster for a time. The Parliament of England, after all, was frequently dissolved for long stretches without losing its sovereignty. With the Constitutional Convention and 1997 referendum, the Scottish people reasserted their sovereign will.

The UK Supreme Court might, in this fantastical scenario, be the one to decide it, but I doubt the Scottish courts would be in the mood to trust them with the job. I agree that it could, in effect, be viewed as a declaration of independence, which is one of the many reasons that Westminster would never go there.

Byron wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:[...] Do you understand? I don't even need to read what some Scottish judge has said. It doesn't matter what he said. [...]

"Some Scottish judge" being David Hope, recently retired from the Supreme Court, formerly a Law Lord, until his retirement the the second most senior judge in the UK.

Who?

I don't give a **** who he is. He's a Scottish judge. It doesn't matter what he thinks - his thoughts do not over-ride the authority of the House of Commons.

ronmcd wrote:Gordon Brown, the man who now wants the public to sign a petition to Cameron to try and pressure Cameron to do what Brown told us was guaranteed, if we voted no. Gordon Brown: fuck you.

Hmm, Gordon Brown, Gordon Brown... I wonder how much respect he has for people's opinions. Let me think...

jez9999 wrote:

Byron wrote:

jez9999 wrote:You've got to admit, if the British had been a bit more bloodthirsty they could've done a Chechnya on Ireland's ass and today Ireland would comfortably be part of the UK.

How much more bloodthirsty could the British state have gotten? Even more massacres? Perhaps some mustard gas?

A hell of a lot more. The British were pussycats by Russian or American standards.

The entire Irish war of independence cost ~2000 lives. More people died in NYC on 9/11. The Chechen Wars cost 100k - 200k lives. Or what about the time when Abraham Lincoln forced half of the USA to remain by force? About 600k dead, 400k wounded. Looks like the British were trying very carefully to minimize the casualties during the Irish war of independence, which is probably why the Irish succeeded.

Those casualty figures aren't exactly one-sided: the Confederates fielded armies and fought pitched battles, in a nation with a population larger than Ireland's by several orders of magnitude.

If the British government ever wanted to govern Ireland, rather than destroy it, it could hardly have been more brutal. The brutality it did apply backfired spectacularly. Force is, ultimately, no substitute for consent.

nunnington wrote:I think Bryon's position is, in political terms, if not legal ones, unassailable. If the House of Commons should attempt, through some bizarre eventuality, to dismiss or abolish the Scottish Parliament or Courts, the result would be probably a violent reaction in Scotland, and the call for another referendum, which this time, would be a yes vote. I'm sure most Westminster politicians bear this in mind now, and they will cool the rhetoric, and tread a little gingerly around the Scottish question.

Scotland will never be granted another referendum on independence if there is any risk of a yes vote. There is no "Scottish question".

ED209 wrote:The thing about nicking off with the goalposts is that you're meant to do it after winning, not losing badly.

It's a rare thing I agree with ED209. But rare things do happen...

Byron wrote:

jez9999 wrote:

Byron wrote:

jez9999 wrote:You've got to admit, if the British had been a bit more bloodthirsty they could've done a Chechnya on Ireland's ass and today Ireland would comfortably be part of the UK.

How much more bloodthirsty could the British state have gotten? Even more massacres? Perhaps some mustard gas?

A hell of a lot more. The British were pussycats by Russian or American standards.

The entire Irish war of independence cost ~2000 lives. More people died in NYC on 9/11. The Chechen Wars cost 100k - 200k lives. Or what about the time when Abraham Lincoln forced half of the USA to remain by force? About 600k dead, 400k wounded. Looks like the British were trying very carefully to minimize the casualties during the Irish war of independence, which is probably why the Irish succeeded.

Those casualty figures aren't exactly one-sided: the Confederates fielded armies and fought pitched battles, in a nation with a population larger than Ireland's by several orders of magnitude.

If the British government ever wanted to govern Ireland, rather than destroy it, it could hardly have been more brutal. The brutality it did apply backfired spectacularly. Force is, ultimately, no substitute for consent.

Tell that to the Chechens.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Scotland will never be granted another referendum on independence if there is any risk of a yes vote. There is no "Scottish question".

If Westminster tries to block a referendum when there's a clear majority for independence, Holyrood will just go ahead without them, then declare independence on their own terms. Barring nonsense about Westminster stopping Holyrood by force, its in their interests to be involved, as they can have a say in the referendum process (such as negotiating to keep devo-max off the ballot in return for a favorable question).

Democratic governments are in no position to try and maintain power solely by force.

Byron wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Scotland will never be granted another referendum on independence if there is any risk of a yes vote. There is no "Scottish question".

If Westminster tries to block a referendum when there's a clear majority for independence, Holyrood will just go ahead without them, then declare independence on their own terms.

You are delusional. I suggest you buy yourself a bottle of Glenfiddich and watch "Passport to Pimlico".

jez9999 wrote:

Byron wrote:[...] Force is, ultimately, no substitute for consent.

Tell that to the Chechens.

They've consented in the crude realpolitik sense that most aren't resisting Moscow, in part 'cause they've got significant local autonomy. The cost has been a long terrorist campaign. If the UK had managed to "pacify" Ireland, it would've received similar treatment.

UndercoverElephant wrote:You are delusional. I suggest you buy yourself a bottle of Glenfiddich and watch "Passport to Pimlico".

I'll take a dram of Ardbeg, thanks.

Just an inch of Ledaig, for me, please, for old time's sake.

Byron wrote:Democratic governments are in no position to try and maintain power solely by force.

Well, we're about to see a very interesting test of this concept when the Catalan people have a referendum. Here's my prediction: they will heavily vote yes for some kind of independence, and Madrid will ignore them. If they do nothing but shout, they will get nowhere. What might get them somewhere is if they stop paying taxes en masse, but do they have the will to do that?

Still, your point about democratic governments being in "no position" to do it I think is just wrong, especially when there is a long history of a country being as one.

If the people of Scotlands will is supreme, surely the last referendum shows that the UK house of commons/Lords, have the supreme decision, on all matters Scotland? Did the people speak? Or do others, after the event, put words into every Scottish residents mouth?

This was a one off event. It set the will of the people. Why would any Scottish judge claim the people are wrong? On what legal grounds does a Scottish judge have the right to deny the will of the people, after this referendum?

Byron wrote:

jez9999 wrote:

Byron wrote:

jez9999 wrote:You've got to admit, if the British had been a bit more bloodthirsty they could've done a Chechnya on Ireland's ass and today Ireland would comfortably be part of the UK.

How much more bloodthirsty could the British state have gotten? Even more massacres? Perhaps some mustard gas?

A hell of a lot more. The British were pussycats by Russian or American standards.

The entire Irish war of independence cost ~2000 lives. More people died in NYC on 9/11. The Chechen Wars cost 100k - 200k lives. Or what about the time when Abraham Lincoln forced half of the USA to remain by force? About 600k dead, 400k wounded. Looks like the British were trying very carefully to minimize the casualties during the Irish war of independence, which is probably why the Irish succeeded.

Those casualty figures aren't exactly one-sided: the Confederates fielded armies and fought pitched battles, in a nation with a population larger than Ireland's by several orders of magnitude.

Population of Ireland in 1920: 3 million. Population of the Confederacy in 1860: 9 million. Not even one order of magnitude.

The equivalent would have been 200,000 deaths in Ireland, mostly of Irish civilians. I think it quite likely that Ireland would have accepted defeat and occupation after such a bloodbath, had the English been bloody minded enough to impose it and accept their share.

Democratic governments absolutely can maintain power solely by force. It just requires the willingness on the part of the majority to use the necessary ungodly amounts of force.

Warren Dew wrote:Population of Ireland in 1920: 3 million. Population of the Confederacy in 1860: 9 million. Not even one order of magnitude.

The U.S. population circa 1860 was, at just over 30 million, smaller than I recalled, and I used over of magnitude as a turn of phrase, but fair enough.

After beating the Confederacy in the field, the federal govt. swiftly reached for the carrot by ending reconstruction, turning a blind eye to convict lease (slavery in all but name), and finally, rubber stamping segregation. It allowed the south to become an apartheid state to shore up its own power.

The equivalent would have been 200,000 deaths in Ireland, mostly of Irish civilians. I think it quite likely that Ireland would have accepted defeat and occupation after such a bloodbath, had the English been bloody minded enough to impose it and accept their share.

Yes, Ireland may well have accepted defeat in those circumstances. Quite how the UK govt. would stay in power while it butchered hundreds of thousands of its Irish citizens is another matter. The decades of armed resistance it'd have to endure don't bear thinking about. Certainly a world away from jez9999's claim that "today Ireland would comfortably be part of the UK," isn't it?

Democratic governments absolutely can maintain power solely by force. It just requires the willingness on the part of the majority to use the necessary ungodly amounts of force.

Emphasis on solely. Yes, they can and do deploy force, but must temper it to retain their power.

Byron wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:Population of Ireland in 1920: 3 million. Population of the Confederacy in 1860: 9 million. Not even one order of magnitude.

The U.S. population circa 1860 was, at just over 30 million, smaller than I recalled, and I used over of magnitude as a turn of phrase, but fair enough.

After beating the Confederacy in the field, the federal govt. swiftly reached for the carrot by ending reconstruction, turning a blind eye to convict lease (slavery in all but name), and finally, rubber stamping segregation. It allowed the south to become an apartheid state to shore up its own power.

If you count waiting for a generation of military supported oppression by carpetbaggers first as "swiftly", I suppose. Reconstruction didn't end until the Hayes administration in 1877-1881.

Democratic governments absolutely can maintain power solely by force. It just requires the willingness on the part of the majority to use the necessary ungodly amounts of force.

Emphasis on solely. Yes, they can and do deploy force, but must temper it to retain their power.

I think the example of the U.S. civil war - the bloodiest war in history - suggests the opposite. Dictatorships tend to be able to maintain control with much less bloodshed.

Obviously there are people here who have not got a clue over Irish history.

What the English and Scottish did to Ireland over the centuries was far worse than anything the Russians did to anyone.